View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
CRITICAL RESEARCH ON
SUSTAINABILITYT IN HRM
Word count: 18.354
Oksana Bastrykina Student number: 01300745
Promotor: Prof. dr. Alex Vanderstraeten
Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:
Master of Science in de Bestuurskunde en het Publiek Management
Academiejaar: 2017- 2018
CRITICAL RESEARCH ON
SUSTAINABILITYT IN HRM
Word count: 18.354
Oksana Bastrykina Student number: 01300745
Promotor: Prof. dr. Alex Vanderstraeten
Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:
Master of Science in de Bestuurskunde en het Publiek Management
Academiejaar: 2017- 2018
I
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT PERMISSION I declare that the content of this Master’s Dissertation may be consulted and/or reproduced, provided that the source is referenced. Name student: Oksana Bastrykina Signature:
I
DUTCH SUMMARY
Momenteel is er geen overeenstemming over wat een 'duurzame organisatie' is. Er zijn
verschillende standpunten en diverse theorieën over dit concept, maar het blijft een uitdaging om
'duurzaamheid' of 'duurzame ontwikkeling' om te zetten in praktische middelen die helpen om
duurzaamheid te integreren in het beleid van organisaties. (Ehnert, 2014).
De HRM Cockpit is een instrument dat ontwikkeld is om de kloof tussen theorie en praktijk op te
vullen. De HRM Cockpit concentreert zich op het in kaart brengen van een strategisch en
duurzaam beleid in de organisatie. De HRM Cockpit wil aandacht schenken aan bredere
maatschappelijke doelstellingen zoals respect voor de mens en zijn omgeving. De HRM Cockpit
biedt een praktisch hulpmiddel en referentiekader aan voor het implementeren en monitoren van
een duurzaam HRM (Vanderstraeten & Banic, 2015).
Het doel van het onderzoek is om het HRM Cockpit model verder te ontwikkelen en om
wetenschappelijk bewijs te leveren ter ondersteuning hiervan. Om dit doel te bewerkstelligen, is
er een uitgebreid literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd.
De onderzoeksvraag is “Is HRM Cockpit een effectief en een geschikt instrument om een
duurzame strategie te implementeren?”. In het onderzoek zullen er een aantal aspecten worden
geanalyseerd om de onderzoeksvraag te beantwoorden. In het eerste hoofdstuk geven wij een
definitie aan “duurzaamheid” en de gerelateerde concepten. Hoofdstuk 2 gaat over de voordelen
van sustainability voor de organisaties. Hoofdstuk 3 is gewijd aan de sustainability processen en
de factoren die de processen kunnen beïnvloeden. In het volgende hoofdstuk zullen wij de
sustainablility strategie en de implementatiemodellen bespreken om te weten welke input van
organisaties nodig is om duurzaam te worden. Hoofdstuk 5 gaat over de methoden om
duurzaamheid te meten en de vergelijking van die methoden met HRM Cockpit. Het laatste
hoofdstuk bespreekt de verschillen tussen HRM Cockpit en andere Sustainable HRM-modellen.
Op basis van de geanalyseerde artikelen, stellen wij dat HRM Cockpit een zeer effectief, nuttig en
geschikt instrument is voor organisaties die streven naar duurzaamheid. Het bevat alle cruciale
elementen van duurzaamheid, biedt de nodige instrumenten en analyse-indicatoren om een
duurzaam beleid te implementeren.
II
FOREWORD
This Master’s dissertation is a closing chapter of my education in Ghent University. Those were
exciting years, full of emotions, adventures, new friends and new places. I would like to thank my
parents for making all of this possible and making me feel their support even through all the
distance between our countries. Also, I want to thank all of my friends for helping me to believe
in myself and reminding me to take a break once in a while. Special thanks are in place for my
partner Ted van Osch for proofreading this dissertation and for always being caring, supportive,
optimistic and patient during this challenging and stressful time. Last but not least, I would like to
express a deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Alex Vanderstraeten and to Victoria Van Oss for their
guidance, useful advice and feedback during this period.
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dutch summary .............................................................................................................................................................. I
Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................................... II
Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................................... III
List of used abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. V
List of tables and figures .............................................................................................................................................. VI
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction to the subject ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Research questions ............................................................................................................................................... 2
3. The structure of the dissertation .......................................................................................................................... 2
HRM COCKPIT ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. HR Value Chain. ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. HRM Strategic Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3. HRM Cockpit .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
1. “Input” ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. “Process” ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3. “Success” ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
4. “Impact” ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
5. “Society” ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY– “IMPACT”. ...................................................................................... 15
1. Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
2. Related concepts ................................................................................................................................................. 19
2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility ..................................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Strategic HRM ............................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Sustainable HRM ........................................................................................................................................... 22
2.4 Green HRM .................................................................................................................................................... 24
3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2. “OUTPUT” AND BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3. PATH FOR SUSTAINABILITY – “PROCESS” .............................................................................................. 27
1. Role of leadership ............................................................................................................................................... 27
2. Role of employees ............................................................................................................................................... 28
3. Role of incentives ................................................................................................................................................ 28
4. Coopetition and cooperation .............................................................................................................................. 29
5. Teaching and training .......................................................................................................................................... 29
IV
6. Technological innovation .................................................................................................................................... 30
7. Ability-motivation-opportunity theory ............................................................................................................... 30
8. Green HRM practices .......................................................................................................................................... 31
8.1 Green recruitment ........................................................................................................................................ 31
8.2 Green training ............................................................................................................................................... 32
8.3 Green management of organisational culture .............................................................................................. 32
8.4 Green empowerment and participation ....................................................................................................... 32
8.5 Green performance management and appraisal .......................................................................................... 33
8.6 Green reward ................................................................................................................................................ 33
9. HRM and CSR....................................................................................................................................................... 34
9.1 Contributions of CSR into HRM and HRM into CSR ....................................................................................... 34
9.2 Typology of CSR-HRM perspectives .............................................................................................................. 36
9.3 High-Performance Work Systems ................................................................................................................. 38
10. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MODELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY- “INPUT” .................................. 39
1. Five stages of sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 39
2. Six-steps implementation framework ................................................................................................................. 40
3. S2AVE .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
4. CSM Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................ 40
5. Sustainable service-oriented business model ..................................................................................................... 41
6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 5. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES AND REPORTING ...................................................................................... 42
1. Presenting Measuring and reporting models and standards .............................................................................. 42
2. Global Reporting Initiative .................................................................................................................................. 44
3. The Balanced Scorecard ...................................................................................................................................... 45
4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 6. OTHER SUSTAINABLE HRM MODELS VS. HRM COCKPIT ....................................................................... 47
1. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard ................................................................................ 47
2. Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) model for Sustainable HRM ...................................................................... 49
3. Comparison and conclusions............................................................................................................................... 51
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Literature list ............................................................................................................................................................... 55
V
LIST OF USED ABBREVIATIONS
HR- Human Resource
HRM – Human Resource Management
GHRM- Green Human Resource Management
CSR- Corporate Social Responsibility
CSP - Corporate Social Performance
PMS - Performance Management Systems
EP- Environmental Performance
PMA – Performance Management and Appraisal
CEO- Chief Executive Officer
HPWS - High-Performance Work Systems
CSM - Corporate Sustainability Management
GRI - Global Reporting Initiative
BSC – Balanced Scorecard
ROC – Respect Openness Continuity
TBL (3 P’s) – Triple Bottom Line (People, Planet, Profit)
VI
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figures:
Figure 1. HRM Value Chain (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 5
Figure 2.HRM Strategic Map. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 6
Figure 3. Visual HRM Cockpit. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 7
Fugure 4. The fundamentals of corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2015) 18
Fugure 5. HRM Roles (Jamali et al., 2015). 23
Figure 6. Conceptual model connecting critical GHRM practices for maximized EP.
(Masri et al., 2017)
31
Figure 7. The general framework of Sustainable BSC. (Kalender et al., 2016). 46
Figure 8. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al.,
2017)
49
Tables:
Table 1. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and number of articles 13
Table 2. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and authors 13-15
Table 3. Typology of CSR–HRM perspectives. (Voegtlin et al., 2016) 37
Table 4. Measuring and reporting models and standards 43
Table 5. Sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI guidelines. (Urbaniec, 2015). 44
Table 6. Affinities between GRI indicators and HRM dimensions. (Jamali et al., 2015). 45
Table 7. The Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model of Sustainable HRM. (De Prins
et al. 2014)
50
1
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT
Nowadays the world faces an unstable economic, social and ecological climate. A new way of
working is needed to adequately react to the challenges of the changing world. (Kramar, 2014).
Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) focuses on those challenges and searches for
solutions. Sustainable HRM goes beyond traditional HRM methods and presents itself as a
transformative approach, which helps to integrate sustainable practices in every sphere of an
organisation (Schroeder, 2012). Next to the traditional organisational interests, Sustainable HRM
underlines the importance of well-being and social value creation (De Prins et al., 2013).
Researchers did not yet come up with a universal definition of a “sustainable organisation”, but
most of them highlight similar trends, which organisations need to follow on their road to
sustainability. It is no longer possible for organisations to merely focus on profit. A lot of research
has been done to prove this fact and it resulted in different theories explaining the significance of
social and ecological sustainability. From the instrumental point of view the idea of ecological and
social sustainability is based on the belief that organisations must limit their negative impact on
the ecological and social environment in order to support the viability of the organisation.
According to Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line framework (1997), which includes three elements
of sustainability, namely “People, Planet and Profit”, organisations have to think further than
maximising their profit, and carry responsibility towards society and ecology (People and Planet).
Only if the organisation concentrates the efforts on all of the three components (3 P’s) it can call
itself “sustainable”. (Elkington, 1997).
Even though there is certainly a consensus about a crucial role of organisations in this process, it
is still a challenge to conceptualise “sustainability” and consequently, to develop a practical tool,
which could be useful to integrate sustainability in HR policy (Ehnert, 2014).
The HRM Cockpit is an instrument designed by Professor dr. Alex Vanderstraeten and his team
(2015) to fill in the gap between theory and practice. The HRM Cockpit is meant to activate
strategic and sustainable HR policy in organisations. HRM Cockpit wants to implement those new
tendencies in HR to bring attention to broader social goals, such as respect for people and
environment. HRM Cockpit presents a practical tool and a frame of reference for implementing
and monitoring a Sustainable HRM. HRM Cockpit allows the organisation to choose a desired
path and to connect indicators to measure the success of each element on the chosen way. This
instrument was designed specifically for public and social profit sector. Although this does not
2
necessarily mean that it cannot be successfully used by private organisations (Vanderstraeten &
Banic, 2015).
2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This master’s dissertation is part of a bigger academic research on Sustainable HRM led by
professor Alex Vanderstraeten. It is meant to help to develop the HRM Cockpit instrument and to
provide more scientific evidence to support it. In order to achieve this goal, a literature study of
the latest articles on the subject was implemented. Not to go too deep into history, to keep the
instrument up-to-date with the latest trends, only articles of maximum 5 years old were used for
the research. The aim was to find as much information as possible on different characteristics,
measures, levels, frameworks, standards etc. of sustainability and Sustainable HRM. The studied
information is supposed to contribute to the development of the instrument and to provide evidence
for the usefulness and effectiveness of the chosen elements of the Cockpit.
Therefore, the main research question is:
Is HRM Cockpit an effective instrument to implement a Sustainable HRM in organisations?
In order to answer this broad question, the articles were analysed to find the answers to the
following sub questions:
What are the conditions for an organisation to be classified as “Sustainable”? How can we measure
Sustainability? What are the ways to become more Sustainable? How can we implement
Sustainable practices through HRM?
3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
The dissertation will begin with the description of the HRM Cockpit and its elements. After that
we will move to the methodology of the performed research. In the following chapters we will
connect the evidence from the articles with the HRM Cockpit elements. The Cockpit presupposes
the movement from right to left: Impact-Output-Process-Input. Since sustainability is the final goal
of Sustainable HRM and, therefore, what it aims to have an impact on, we need to first find out
what exactly sustainability is. That is why the following part of the dissertation- chapter 1, will
begin with the definitions of sustainability and of the related concepts to see what we are striving
to achieve with Sustainable HRM. Chapter 2 will cover the effects of sustainable practices and
discuss how beneficial sustainability is for the company. This leads us to the chapter 3, which
describes the sustainable processes, the conditions and the ways to achieve the desired outcomes.
3
After all of that, the organisation needs to form a sustainability strategy and choose methods and
systems to implement it (the Input), hence in chapter 4 we will take a look at the different theories
on this subject offered by the researchers. HRM Cockpit presupposes choosing the indicators to
measure the effectiveness of the process, therefore chapter 5 will provide an overview of the
existing indicators and measuring systems and a comparison of those to the measurement system
of HRM Cockpit. Chapter 6 will discuss the other Sustainable HRM models, offered by the authors
of the analysed articles, which will be compared to HRM Cockpit. In the end of the dissertation
we will discuss the conclusions of the analysis, the limitations and propositions for the future
researches.
4
HRM COCKPIT
HRM Cockpit is an instrument developed by professor Alex Vanderstraeten and his team in 2015.
It is based on the data collected through a research of scientific literature and an analysis of policies
and strategies of different organisations. The two main concepts that this instrument is centred
around are Strategic Mapping (Norton & Kaplan, 2000) and Value Chain Thinking (Guest, 1997).
Those original concepts were adapted to the HRM context and lead to a creation of HRM Value
Chain and HRM Strategic Map. (see Figure 1 and 2).
1. HR VALUE CHAIN.
The HR Value Chain combines different aspects of HR. It provides a visual representation of how
different HR elements influence each other and how they affect the success of the whole
organisation. For those reasons the HR Value Chain was chosen as an inspiration to create the
logic for the HRM Cockpit. Let us take a closer look on the elements of the Value Chain.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)
- Economic pressure and institutional pressure. The economic pressures are technology,
competition, market state, etc. and social, legal and industrial relations.
- Organisational configuration. The organisation’s structure, culture and history function as
a filter for the external influence and the strategy decides how exactly will the organisation
handle them.
- HR strategy. The strategy creates short- and long-term strategic goals, which have to
correspond to the organisational strategy.
- HR systems and practices. HR systems and practices form the concrete application of the
HR.
- Employee perception, attitudes and competency. HR practices and intentions often deviate
from how the employees see and interpret them, so they need communication, education
and evaluation.
- The role of the supervisor/manager. Managers serve as a controlling and evaluating
instrument and influence how the HR systems and practices are communicated
- Employees’ behaviour. The desired behaviour and the way the employees perform is what
the HR is aiming to form.
- HR output. The outputs include both HR results (like high job satisfaction, involvement
and motivation) and specific employee outputs (productivity, quality and speed of
performed work).
5
- Organisational output. HR and employee output influences the success of the organisation
in the short- and long-term. This includes both financial and non-financial results.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)
Value chain makes it clear that the positive results of the HR systems and practices can be
supported by constantly providing a feedback. This feedback can only be successful when the
information is available for everyone and is connected to the HR strategy and policy. All those
elements of the Value Chain provide a crucial contribution to the creation of the HRM Cockpit.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)
Figure 1. HRM Value Chain (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)
2. HRM STRATEGIC MAPPING
The next concept is an HRM Strategic Map. The original concept was created by Kaplan & Norton
(2000). In our case it was applied to HRM and is a visual representation of the strategy. It brings
out the critical success factors which help to reach organisational goals. It shows the links between
the causes and the results and helps to achieve the desired outcomes. It also helps the organisation
to realise which aspects and factors influence each other and in what way. Strategic map is a
dynamic instrument that evolves together with the mission, vision, goals and capacity of the
organisation. The identification of the success factors starts with the establishing of the final goals
and strategy of the organisation. Next, the organisation has to select the output factors which can
possibly bring a substantial contribution to achieving those goals. After that it is time to select the
6
HR processes which influence the HR output. Those are the ways of the implementation of the HR
policy and HR systems in the organisation. All of this leads to the necessary HR input in the form
of the HR policy, HR capacity and the existing HR systems and practices, that create the basis for
the HR processes. In other words, the strategic map gives the answer to the question which HR
input is needed to realize the sustainable HR strategy and to achieve the core goals of the
organisation. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).
Figure 2.HRM Strategic Map. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)
3. HRM COCKPIT
The HR Value Chain and the HR Strategic Map were put together in the HRM Cockpit. It
visualises how the organisational goals connect to the employee behaviour and how the HRM
policy and practices influence this. The HRM Cockpit serves as instructions for the HRM on how
it can influence employees to achieve the desired organisational outcomes. Each element is
provided by the validated questionnaires and measures that help HR to collect information and
evaluate their policy. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).
The Visual HRM Cockpit is presented in Figure 3. Now we will take a look at each of the
components.
7
Figure 3. Visual HRM Cockpit. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).
1. “ INPUT”
-HR capacity. HR needs the necessary knowledge, qualities and attitudes to solve the HR related
issues.
-HR strategy and policy. The effective implementation begins with a clear vision of the future of
the organisation. HR takes care of the necessary involvement of the employees in the organisation.
The HR managers create the HR strategy and design the plan for the application of the strategy.
This involves developing the HR instruments, methods and systems which contribute to the
organisational success.
-HR systems, practices and instruments. HR systems are the integration of the related HR practices
and the instruments are the exact methods and techniques that are used by HR. For example: HR
system- Recruitment and selection; involved HR practices- interviews, assessment; instruments-
IQ tests, scenarios for the assessment, etc.
(Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)
8
2. “PROCESS”
This involves management processes and HR actions in the organisation. The core processes are
the performance and talent management, leadership and organisational development and
communication. The focus is made on the elements that have a strategic and sustainable character.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).
-Performance and talent management include: inflow and outflow of the employees; management
of the performance of the employees; talent development of the workers.
-Leadership. Leaders such as managers and directors of the organisation play a pivotal role in the
implementation of the HR policy. They have a strong influence on the behaviour of the employees.
They have to be in accordance with the goals of the HR policy to be able to promote the desired
behaviour.
-Organisational development and communication. Implementation of a strategic and sustainable
HRM is impossible without changing and developing the culture and the structure of the
organisation. Basing on the HR policy, HR decides which organisational design is needed to
support performance of the employees.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).
3. “SUCCESS”
According to Vanderstaeten et al. (2015), HR Success forms the first group of HR-output and it is
composed of:
-Organisational design highlights what is important for the organisation and how employees
should act. So, the important question here is how the organisational structure and culture
facilitates the work of the employees to achieve the organisational goals and forms their mindset;
- Sustainable behaviour of the employees includes the actual ways the employees behave, which
shows their mindset. The employees must realise the impact their behaviour has on the strategical
goals and sustainability of the organisation and the must know how they can contribute to it;
-Competences of the employees. Talent management leads to the creation of certain internal
competences of the employees. Judging by the workers talents, HR develops the strong
characteristics of the employees and harmonizes them with the core competences of the
organisation.
(Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)
9
4. “ IMPACT”
In case al the previous steps are successfully implemented, the HR and the employees create the
desired impact on the organisation. Looking at the impact through the sustainability concept, the
impact on Performance (financial and non-financial results), People and Planet is highlighted.
-Performance. A sustainable organisation will first of all take care of achieving the long-term
results. The specific nature of the social profit sector means that not only financial results are
important. The creation of social value is central for these organisations. Financial results (profit)
support the existence of the organisation and satisfaction of the stakeholders. Non-financial results
are about development of the well-being of the society;
- People. This dimension highlights the extent to which the organisation realizes an HR outcome
in the area of well-being, growth and development of the employees. A sustainable organisation
will provide room for personal development, attention to health and safety at the workplace and
respect of labour rights;
-Planet. A sustainable organisation will pay attention to the impact it has on the environment. It
strives to be environmentally conscious in daily activities, so that it has as little impact as possible
on the air, water, soil and biodiversity.
(Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)
5. “SOCIETY”
To present the model completely it should be placed into a broad society context. An organisation
is an independent entity that functions in an entirety of other organisations and people. All those
surrounding elements have to be taken into account by the HR policy. (Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)
Filling in the HRM Cockpit has to be performed from right to left. It is a dynamic process that
brings contributions to the whole organisation. The 5 steps that are needed for the use of the HRM
cockpit are:
1. Involve the most important stakeholders to the development of the HRM cockpit.
2. Think in terms of the Value chain and the impact (impact, output, throughout and input).
3. Start with the organisational strategy.
4. Work from right to left by building the HRM Cockpit
5. Draw a Strategic map with the help of a defined path. (Once the input and the success
factors are defined, you draw a path from left to right. It makes it clear which way should
10
be taken in order to have an impact on the 3 P’s and the organisational strategy. The defined
path leads to the end of the strategic mapping and begins the immediate implementation of
the sustainable HR strategy.)
(Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)
METHODOLOGY
Sustainable HRM is a relatively new field and it lacks a transparently defined concept. That is why
a fundamental theoretical review has advantages in comparison to other ways of research. It is
crucial to collect and analyse available information to form an insight on the subject. Qualitative
research is therefore necessary to understand the new concept. Due to being deeply involved, the
researcher gets an insider vision of the field. This way the researchers can notice issues, which
could be missed by scientific more positivistic researches. Qualitative analysis can play an
important role in searching for possible relationships, causes, effects in dynamic processes.
Qualitative analysis covers all the biases and contradictions, which reflect social reality.
(Denscombe, 2010).
However, literature research hides obstacles for the researchers. According to Van Thiel (2014),
there is a danger of selectivity and subjectivity of data collection. The researcher chooses himself
which information to use. This can influence the objectivity of the research and lead to conclusions,
based on a personal opinion and intuition. (Van Thiel, 2014),
For this dissertation, a qualitative approach was used, and more precisely - a systematic review.
A systematic review aims to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant
to our research question. Instead of making conclusions based on a single study, a systematic
review gives an opportunity to analyse numerous resources to find the answers. By studying large
numbers of resources, a systematic review helps to track the latest developments and tendencies.
Systematic review leads to more reliable conclusions than studies based on a limited amount of
resources. This method also helps to identify limitations and gaps in the previous studies and
introduce them for future researchers. (De Regge, 2017).
The first step was to decide where we can find the needed information. There are numerous
databases available online, which can help us with this task. The choice fell onto Web of Science
since it can serve as a multidisciplinary source, and EBSCO as it is a big database with articles
from business and management fields. Google Scholar was also used, since it helps to find articles
unavailable in open access via Web of Science or EBSCO. (De Regge, 2017)
11
Now let us move to what we are going to search for. Since HRM Cockpit is a new instrument and
it is meant to be used by organizations in modern conditions, it must be able to keep up with all
the recent trends, developments and challenges. To not go too deep into history, to keep the
instrument fresh and up-to-date with the latest trends, only articles of maximum 5 years old were
used for the research. Any types of information were interesting for us- starting from articles in
scientific journals and finishing with books or dissertations.
Finally, we need to choose how we will search for the information. The keywords that we are going
to use can influence the whole outcome of the search process, therefore they must be chosen very
carefully.
The keywords used for the research are:
Sustainability, Corporate Sustainability, Green HRM, Green Human Resource Management,
Sustainable HRM, Sustainable Human Resource Management, Corporate Social Responsibility,
Socially Responsible HRM, Socially Responsible Human Resource Management.
Filters, that were applied:
Language-English
Year-2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017
Categories- Management, Business, Economics, Public Administration
The resources were gathered via EndNote and checked for relevance to form an inclusion set. This
assessment was conducted via PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses). (De Regge, 2017). It maps out information about the number of
records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the
reasons for exclusions (such as duplicates, relevance, eligibility). The use of checklists like
PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial
transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review. (Moher & Liberati, 2009).
The end results of the search via Web of Science and EBSCO were 2930 articles. Afterwards, by
using the PRISMA method, we were able to find the most relevant sources for our research. First,
the duplicates were removed, which left us with 2574 articles. Then, after screening the titles for
relevance, the total number was brought down to 436 articles. After that, an analysis of the articles’
abstracts must be performed to verify the content for valuableness, which enabled us to limit the
number to 174 articles.
12
As the final step the content was analysed via NVivo, that helped to connect the data with our
research questions, and draw conclusions about similar trends and ideas in different sources. In
order to do this, the contents of each article were coded in the following Nodes:
“Sustainability definition”:
with Child Nodes: “Dimensions” and “Standards”
“Strategies and guideline for sustainability”:
With Child Nodes: “Triple Bottom Line”, “Stages of sustainability”, “Use of incentives”;
“Measures of sustainability”:
With Child Nodes: “Balanced Scorecard”, “Reporting”
“Corporate Social Responsibility”
“HRM and Sustainability”
With Child Nodes: “HRM and CSR”, “Sustainable HRM”, “Strategic HRM”
“Green HRM”:
With Child Nodes: “green empowerment and participation”, “green management”, “green
performance”, “green recruitment”, “green reward”, “green training”;
“Benefits of sustainability”
The Open codes were used for the main Nodes. Those are descriptive codes, as they describe what
comes up in the research material. Those codes help to identify and note all the subjects and trends
that appeared in the articles during its analysis, therefore they also could be named “themecodes”.
The Child Nodes are thematic codes, which were formed by the Axial coding, as this is a process
of relating the codes to each other and forming a category or a concept. After the categories were
formed they can be compared to each other and checked for relationships and connections-this
process is called a “selective coding”. The results of the coding process can now be used for the
detailed description of the analysed subjects and to answer the research questions and draw
conclusions. (Voets, 2018).
In result of the research and NVivo analysis 2 tables were composed to provide the visual overview
of the main tendencies in the articles. The whole scope of the articles could be divided according
13
to 8 main subjects that were covered by them. Table 1 shows how many articles were dedicated to
each subject and Table 2 refers you to which authors discussed those subjects in their works.
Table 1. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and number of articles (Own elaboration)
Subject Number of articles
Definition of Sustainability 32
Triple Bottom Line 28
Strategies for Sustainability 66
Measures and reporting 43
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 42
HRM and Sustainability 58
Green HRM 26
Benefits of Sustainability 17
As we can see from Table 1, the most trending subjects in analysed articles are strategies for
Sustainability (66 articles mentioning this) and connections between HRM and Sustainability (58
articles). Next two popular subjects are CSR and sustainability reporting and measures-42 and 43
articles. Those articles unfortunately did not directly discuss HRM so they are less relevant for this
research. However, they do discuss crucial ideas which can and should be connected to HRM
practices. “Green HRM” seems to have a small number of articles covering the subject (26),
although some of the practices mentioned there are technically identical to those mentioned in
“Sustainable HRM”. This situation might appear due to the lack of a universally accepted
definition of “Sustainability” and the existence of many terms for the same concept.
Table 2. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and authors (Own elaboration)
Subject Authors
Definition of
Sustainability
Kalender & Vayal (2016), Tasleem & Khan(2017), Svensson & Høgevold (2016), Fadhilah
& Ramayan (2012), Kramar (2014), Biggemann & Williams (2014), Høgevold & Svensson
(2012), Vildåsen & Keitsch (2016), Reilly & Hynan (2014), Skare & Golja (2012),
Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016)-parts 1, 2, 3; Venkatraman & Nayak (2015), Schuler &
Rasche (2017), Goyal & Rahman (2013); Turnbull & Williams(2015); Schulz & Flanigan
(2016); Asif & Searcy (2013); Urbaniec (2015); Saufi & Daud (2016); Wagner (2012); Gupta
& Aggarwal (2016); Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Ahern (2015); Deaconu &Ghenu (2016);
Radu (2012); Guerci & Carollo (2016); Bekmezci (2015); Isil & Hernke (2017).
Triple Bottom Line Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); Wagner & Avasilcai (2015);
Fadhilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Reilly &
14
Hynan (2014); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015b); Bonsón &
Bednárová (2015); Asif & Searcy (2013); Saufi & Daud (2016); Harris & Tregidga (2012),
Ahern (2015), Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Radu (2012); Buller & McEvoy (2016);
Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Jitmaneeroj (2016); Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute
(2017); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Shirahada & Kosaka (2012); Passalidou
(2016); de Prins & Van Beirendonck (2014); Segers & Isil (2017); İyigün (2015); Hahn &
Figge (2015).
Strategies for
Sustainability
Tasleem & Khan (2017); Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Butnariu & Avasilcai (2014);
Fabdilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Schaltegger
& Hansen ( 2016); Høgevold & Svensson (2012); Dahlmann & Branicki (2017); Dhanda
(2013); Vildåsen & Keitsch (2017); Christ & Burritt (2017); Reilly & Hynan (2014);
Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016)-parts 2 and 3; Venkatraman & Nayak (2015); Schuler &
Rasche (2017); Bonsón & Bednárová (2015); Brockhaus & Amos (2017); Montiel &
Delgaddo-Ceballos (2014); Schulz & Flanigan (2016); Asif & Searcy (2013);
Suriyankietkaew (2016); Urbaniec (2015); Saufi & Daud (2016); Eccles & Perkins (2012);
Harris & Tregidga (2012); Ahern (2015); Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Wolf (2013); Radu
(2012); Degato (2017); Hall & Wagner (2012); Guerci & Pedrini (2014); Schaltegger &
Burritt (2015); Baumgartner (2014); Buller & McEvoy (2016); Dutta &Lawson (2012);
Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Bekmezci (2015); Tregidga & Milne (2014); Walker
& Ni (2015); Jitmaneeroj (2016); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015b); Savaneviciene &
Stankeviciute (2017); Alazzani & Hassanein (2017); Sugiyama & Shirahada (2012); Strand
(2014); Balaceanu & Apostol (2012); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Baumgartner
& Winter (2014); Kairouz & Hokayem (2016); Aragon-Correa & Marcus (2017); Adams &
Jeanrenaud (2016); Passalidou (2016); de Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Vitari & David
(2017); Xing & Starik (2017); Wagner (2015); McElroy & Van Engelen (2012); Abdelmotaal
& Abdel-Kader (2016); Isil & Hernke (2017); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); Garay & Font
(2017); Iyigün (2015); Hahn & Figge (2015).
Measures and
reporting
Kalender & Vayvay (2016); Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Vavra & Bednarikova (2012);
Butnariu & Avasilcai (2015); Reilly& Hynan (2014); Skare & Golja (2012); Celma &
Martinez-Garcia (2014); Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015);
Goyal & Rahman (2013); Gnanaweera & Kunori (2018); Bonsón & Bednárová (2015);
Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos (2014); Garg (2017); Schulz & Flanigan (2016); Vigneau &
Moon (2015); Asif & Searcy (2013); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Morgeson & Aguinis (2013);
Urbaniec (2015); Alonso-Almeida & Llach (2014); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Li &
Ngniatedema (2017); Radu (2012); Schaltegger & Burritt (2015), Escrig-Olmedo & Muñoz-
Torres (2017); Antonini & Larrinaga (2017); Whiteman & Walker (2013); Albu & Dumitru
(2013); Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Tabatabaei & Omran (2017); Speziale &
Klovien (2014); Lis (2012); Calu & Negrei (2015); Cohen & Holder-Webb (2012); Jamali
& Dirani (2015); Ehnert & Parsa (2016); Kocmanova & Docekalova (2017); Coutinho &
Domingues (2018); Hansen & Schaltegger (2016); Carnevale & Mazzuca (2014); Sarmah &
Islam (2015); Bala & Bartel (2015)
Corporate Social
Responsibility
(CSR)
Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Amaladoss
& Manohar (2013); Reilly & Hynan (2014); Arnaud & Wasieleski (2014); Skare & Golja
(2012); Chaudhry (2016); Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016); Schuler & Rasche (2017);
Magbool & Amran (2016); Ahen & Zettinig (2015); Berber & Susnjar (2014); Wang & Chen
(2017); Balgiah & Yuliati (2017); Ameer & Othman (2017); Brockhau & Amos ( 2017);
Wilburn & Wilburn (2014); Asif & Searcy (2013); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Supanti &
Butcher (2015); Jamali & Dirani(2015); Morgeson & Aguinis (2013); Urbaniec (2015);
Wagner (2013); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Astara & Beneki (2017); Radu (2012);
Degato (2017); Baumgartner (2014); Aaron (2012); Balaban & Cicioglu (2012); Speziale &
Kloviene (2014); Szczepańska-Woszczyna (2015); Carnevale & Mazzuca (2014); Sarmah
& Islam (2015); de Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Newman & Miao (2016); Aggerholm
& Trapp (2014); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); İyigün (2015); Aguinis & Glavas (2012).
HRM and
Sustainability
Fadhilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Renwick & Jabbour(2016); Muller-Camen &
Redman (2016); Arnaud & Wasieleski (2014); Voegtlin & Greenwood (2016); Celma &
Martinez-Garcia (2014); Magbool & Amran (2016); Berber & Susnjar (2014); Singh &
Kumar (2013); Rok & Mulej (2014); de Vos & van der Heijden (2014); Ehnert & Harry
(2014); Parkes & Davis (2013); Wagner (2015b); Jamali & Dirani (2015); Morgeson &
15
Aguinis (2013); Lia & Tang (2012); Persson & Agostini (2017); Haddock-Millar & Sanyal
(2016); Zhang & Di Fan (2014); Harris & Tregidga (2012); Antonioli & Mancinelli (2013);
Cohen & King (2017); ); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Zibarras & Coan (2015);
Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Rothenberg & Hull (2015); Paille &
Chen (2014); Wolf (2013); Yong & Mohd-Yusoff (2016); Guerci & Pedrini (2014);
Schaltegger & Burritt (2015); Buller & McEvoy (2016); Guerci & Carollo (2016);
Tabatabaei & Omran (2017); Ehnert & Harry (2012); Lis (2012); Ehnert & Parsa (2016);
Szczepańska-Woszczyna (2015); Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute (2017); Dubois & Dubois
(2012); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Kozica & Kaiser (2012); Esfahani & Rezaii
(2017); Passalidou (2016); App & Büttgen (2016); App & Merk (2012); Mazur (2014); de
Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Mazur (2015); Persson & Shrivastava (2016); Newman &
Miao (2016); Lakshimi & Kennedy (2017); Langwell & Heaton (2016), Savaneviciene &
Stankeviciute (2014).
Green HRM Masri & Jaaron (2017); Renwick & Jabbour (2016); Christ & Burritt (2017); Arnaud &
Wasieleski (2014); Amin-Chaudhry (2016); Cheema & Javed (2017); Dumont & Shen
(2017); Rayner & Morgan (2018); Khurshid & Darzi (2016); Renwick & Redman (2013);
Wagner (2013); Tang & Chen (2018); Haddock-Millar & Sanyal (2016); Aragao & Jabbour
(2017); Zibarras & Coan (2015); Paille & Chen (2014); Yong & Mohd-Yusoff (2016); Guerci
& Carollo (2016); Saifulina & Carballo-Penela (2017); Pinzone & Guerci (2016); Gholami
& Rezaei (2016); Dubois & Dubois (2012); Baumgartner & Winter (2014); Aragon-Correa
& Marcus (2017); O’Donohue & Torugsa (2016); Langwell & Heaton (2016).
Benefits of
Sustainability
Brockhaus & Amos (2017); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Rayner & Morgan (2018); Supanti &
Butcher (2015); Cohen & King (2017); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Astara & Beneki
(2017); Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Li & Ngniatedema (2017); Rothenberg & Eirikur
(2015); Eccles & Ioannou (2014); Wolf (2013); Hall & Wagner (2012); Windolph & Harms
(2014); Ameer & Othman (2012); Yu & Zhao (2015); Abri & Bi (2017).
CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY– “IMPACT”.
1. DEFINITIONS
As highlighted by the HRM Cockpit, sustainability is the final goal of organisations, therefore we
need to find out what exactly this concept means and which elements it includes. Only after
defining this goal, we can move to the other elements of the Cockpit to define the steps we need
to take to achieve it. Authors of the studied articles attempt to create a comprehensive definition
to limit the amount of discrepancies between existing concepts and theories. They provide various
definitions and discuss numerous theories striving to explain the concept. There are a number of
related concepts that also need to be defined: concepts like Corporate Social Responsibility,
Sustainable HRM, Strategic HRM, Green HRM, which authors see as being connected to
sustainability of the organisation.
Some authors define sustainability according to the Stakeholders Theory, when sustainability
recognises the interconnection and interaction of stakeholders, organisational systems and sub-
systems, social systems and the environment in which these systems operate. (Kramar, 2014;
Montiel at al.,2014). In accordance with this approach, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) define
16
corporate sustainability as “meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders without
compromising its ability to meet the needs for future stakeholders as well”. (Tasleem et al., 2017).
An alternative way of understanding sustainability is to frame it in terms of businesses operating
in a neoliberal form of capitalism, instead of taking into account stakeholder interests. When this
approach is taken, sustainability gives precedence to the owners, usually the shareholders of
business organisations. According to this theory, managers and executives are primarily
responsible to the owners of the organisation. That responsibility is to conduct the business in
accordance with their desires, which will generally be to make as much money as possible while
conforming to the rules of society. (Kramar, 2014).
Some authors argue that sustainable development is impossible to achieve without taking into
account fiscal sustainability. It helps with making better investment decisions, creating improved
performance metrics, reducing costs and capturing more valuable business data. (Appelbaum et
al., 2016b).
Popular definitions are those provided by reporting agencies such as the definition of The Dow
Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), which defines the term corporate sustainability as: “a business
approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks
deriving from economic, environmental and social developments … corporate sustainability leaders
achieve long-term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and management to harness the
market’s potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully
reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks”. (Tasleem et al., 2017).
Finally, the core of mainstream sustainability thinking has become the idea of three dimensions:
environmental, social and economic sustainability (Fadhilah, 2012). This definition is applied since
Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in 1987. This Commission took a broad view of long-
term sustainable development and defined the three dimensions. According to the Commission,
sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability for future generations to meet their own needs”. (Kramar, 2014).
Later this definition was applied to a concept by Elkington (1997) and received the name “Triple
Bottom Line”. It combined three elements of sustainability- People, Planet and Profit. The key for
sustainable development is that resources and opportunities should be widely shared in society.
Where this fails to occur, individuals, communities and ecosystems become vulnerable to external
17
perturbations, to failures in governance, and the social crises. Therefore, global contribution is a pre-
condition for sustainable growth and development. (Skare et al., 2012).
Although, as most theoretical models, Triple Bottom line received some critiques. The controversy
is that the three separate dimensions of the model cannot easily be quantified with similar metrics,
meaning that it is problematic to measure the environmental and social impact in the same way as
financial results. (Schulz et al., 2016). The problem of measuring and aggregating non-financial
impacts creates an issue for using this concept for sustainability reporting. Also, companies might
use this tool merely to improve legitimacy as a response pressure from government or society. The
danger is that firms disclose nothing more than basic information about each bottom line without
integration and without providing information about how they measured the results. (Isil et al.,
2017).
Sharma (2014) agrees with this idea and defines sustainability as “resilience and the longevity of our
ecosystems (which includes minerals, vegetation, oceans, atmosphere, climate, water bodies, and
biodiversity), society (which includes culture, languages, and quality of life), and economy” (Rasche
et at., 2017).
An important concept of sustainability is found in the System theory, which interprets sustainability
as the ability of the human system to adapt to the ecological system. The solution to sustainability is
to adopt a holistic view to analyse the qualities that appear from interactions within the whole, instead
of dividing the system into elements. A new paradigm is suggested where Earth’s life-support
systems is the basis for all human activity. (Vildåsen et al., 2017).
Hahn et al., (2015) provide a model which can be used to summarize the basic concepts of
sustainability (Figure 4). The dimension of change includes economic, social and environmental
values and it is strongly linked to societal interests. The level of change shows the systemic nature
of sustainability, and the intersection between the ecological, economic and social dimensions. The
context has fundamental implications. The model shows that short-term profit orientation creates a
hinder to a long-term investment. It also reflects spatial elements such as the division of activities
between developed and under-developed regions. This model is appropriate since it takes into
account different levels of analysis-individual, organizational and systemic. It provides a tool to
analyse the underlying tensions of bringing sustainability to the business level. (Vildåsen et al.,
2017).
18
Fugure 4. The fundamentals of corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2015).
There are different views on the three dimensions. Proponents of “strong sustainability” claim that
there are fundamental differences between them. Natural capital represents a unique contribution to
societal welfare which cannot be substituted by human or financial capital. Natural capital cannot be
understood through quantitative techniques since there are qualitative differences between
ecosystem services and their influence on social systems. ‘Weak sustainability” treats the three forms
interchangeably with the assumption that the aggregated amount of capital is to be allocated in an
optimal manner. In other words, this position makes it possible to conduct trade-offs between social,
environmental and social values. (Vildåsen et al., 2017).
The tree pillars are also combined in other broader definitions like Szekely and Knirsch’s (2005)
definition, that calls for the need to balance the three CS pillars and then list 10 different dimensions
to be sustained: (a) economic growth, (b) shareholder value, (c) prestige, (d) corporate reputation,
(e) customer relationships, (f) product quality, (g) ethical business practices, (h) sustainable jobs
creation, (i) value creation for all the stakeholders, and (j) attention to the need of the underserved.
Although, this definition might seem overwhelming to people trying to use it to measure company’s
sustainability. (Montiel et el., 2014).
19
2. RELATED CONCEPTS
2.1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
CSR is closely related to Sustainability. Some authors even consider these two concepts as
synonyms, as they agree that CSR is about integrating the Triple Bottom Line into the company’s
activities. (Amaladoss et al., 2013; Reilly et al., 2014; Arnaud et al., 2014). Although, other authors
also mentioned that CSR is only a micro aspect of sustainable development. (Skare et al., 2012).
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines CSR as ‘the continuing
commitment by businesses to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while
improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community
and society at large’. The European Commission defines CSR as ‘a concept whereby companies
integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with
their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. These definitions show that the concept of CSR is about
integrating the triple bottom into a multistakeholder dialogue on a voluntary basis (Amaladoss et al.,
2013).
Corporate social responsibility is seen as an intelligent investment, bringing benefits both to the
company, and to the entire community. It improves the relationship with the community, influences
the target audience, places the company on a higher position in society, gives a better reputation to
the company, increases client loyalty, and motivates employees. It is essential for long-term
prosperity and represents a vital connection with society. (Radu, 2012).
CSR programs aim to promote sustainability in organisations. CSR promotes sustainable
performance in People-Planet-Profit dimensions. The role of managers in this process is
emphasized by numerous researches, as the formation of sustainable strategies depend on their
decisions. (Skare et al., 2012; Arnaud et al., 2014). Still, the actual added value of CSR and the
identification of the distribution of this value is difficult to assess, due to the lack of a commonly
accepted measurement system and differences in how the contributions to each of the 3P’s
dimensions can be calculated. (Biggemann et al., 2014). The existence of CSR programs alone
does not guarantee the achievement of company’s sustainability strategies. The programs have to
be integrated into strategy and culture of the organisation and transferred into everyday activities.
The communication and integration of the CSR programs within all the departments is crucial.
(Biggemann et al., 2014; Ahen et al., 2015)
20
2.1.1 SHARED VALUE CONCEPT
Amin-Chaudhry (2016) discusses in his article the “shared value” concept. This concept deliberates
the motivation of organisations to follow CSR programs. It is stated that companies and society are
interconnected and their well-being and success depends on each other. That is why companies
follow the “shared value” principle, as they want to create value for both the society and their own
business. If the CSR is a part of their business and a source of opportunity and a competitive
advantage, it leads to a better management and performance. In order to assess the created shared
value, companies need to: - identify the social goals; - develop a business case; - track the progress;
- measure the results and focus on a new shared value. This process provides positive reinforcement
and therefore supports the financial investment and a creation of additional social values. (Amin-
Chaudhry, 2016).
2.1.2 SEVEN STAGES OF CSR
Amin-Chaudhry (2016) also provides an overview of the seven stages of CSR:
1. window dressing- at this stage companies redesign the corporate reporting style;
2. cost containment – organisations begin to develop energy efficiency programs;
3. stakeholder engagement- firms start to use balanced scorecards to engage stakeholders;
4. measurement and reporting- growth of measurement and reporting initiatives;
5. sustainability reporting- assessment of sustainable development of companies adds to other
reports;
6. transparency- measurement and reporting are made in an open manner;
7. accountability – companies become accountable for their actions.
2.1.3 CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
Arnaud et al., (2014) discuss the Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model that analyses CSR
of the organisation at three levels- institutional, organisational and individual and assesses the
social outcomes. The institutional level includes principles of social legitimacy, the organisational
level involves public responsibility and individual level analyses managerial discretion. This
framework provides the analysis of principles that can help to give the right direction to managerial
decisions. The authors emphasize the importance of the third level – individual level, as the policy
choices and the way of their implementation mostly depends on the managerial decisions. It is the
21
managers responsibility to form the strategy that will lead the company towards socially
responsible outcomes. (Arnaud et al., 2014). In order to come up with the right decisions,
managers have to act according to the following moral principles: - ensuring dignity and respect
of human lives; - providing people with autonomy and the right to self-determination; -being
honest; -honour loyalty and commitment; -treat everyone fairly; - promoting humaneness by
avoiding evil actions; - the actions should be directed towards the greatest good for the society.
(Skare et al., 2012).
2.2 STRATEGIC HRM
The attention of HRM has shifted towards the strategic level in the 90s when researchers of that
time introduced a vertical link with the organizational strategy. This means that the HRM strategy
and HRM practices have to be in sync with the strategy of the organization. Organisations started
to realise that they are not isolated and independent and they have to coexist with other
organisations and the environment. Therefore, the Strategic approach of HRM emerged, which
started paying attention to externalities and introduced the link with other external organizational
and environmental factors. A horizontal relationship with other functional management practices
is also of importance for Strategic HRM. This alignment can be used in in a context of coordination
with other functional domains (marketing, finances)- the first level of horizontal alignment, but
also it deals with different HRM systems and applications to make them internally consistent - the
second level of alignment. The strategic role of HRM is to become a strategic partner of the top
management and the outcome of it is the HRM strategy. (Vanderstraeten, 2014)
Three theoretical approaches to strategic HRM can be identified. The first one implies that there is
“one best way” of HRM, which can improve business performance. This is also called the “best
practice” approach, that states that certain practices and policies will always result in improved
performance. The aim for organisations is to identify what these practices are and use them. The
second approach is the “contingency” theory or “fit approach”, which aligns employment policies
and practices with the organisational strategy and goals. This approach assumes, that different types
of HR strategies suit for different types of business strategies. The third approach is the “resource-
based view” of the organisation. According to this theory, neither of the mentioned two approaches
is sufficient, since every organisation is unique, therefore the HR policy and practices will be unique
for each organisation. (Rok et al., 2014)
According to Rok et al. (2014) all the models can be divided to “hard” or “soft” ones. People are
seen as resources by the supporters of the hard approaches. Those resources should be managed
22
like any other resources of the company. They have to be cheap and used to achieve competitive
advantage of the organisation. Soft HRM approaches are more humanist, as they treat employees
as assets. The central principles of those approaches are the development of employees,
communication, motivation and performance. Employees should be led, not managed or
controlled. (Rok et al., 2014)
2.3 SUSTAINABLE HRM
With the appearance of the new economic, social and ecological external challenges in the world,
new organisational sustainable goals appeared. HRM helps the organizational leaders to introduce
those new goals into the organizational strategy. For that reason, some authors see Sustainable
HRM as a synonym to Strategic HRM. The key objective of Sustainable HRM is to contribute to
organisational performance by introducing sustainable strategies and effectively motivate human
resources to act more sustainable. HRM does this by coordinating the HRM policy with the
sustainable goals of the organisation, which is the goal of Strategic HRM as well. (Ehnert, 2009).
Others see Sustainable HRM as only a part of Strategic HRM or as an extension of it, since
Strategic HRM might include broader goals than just sustainability. (Martin-Alcazar et al., 2005;
Kramar, 2014).
Finally, it is also considered as a totally new and individual approach, which appeared to replace
the old Strategic HRM. This approach recognises the impact people management policies have on
human, ecological and financial outcomes. Sustainable HRM does not preclude the aspects of
Strategic HRM. Strategic HRM is more concentrated on the alignment and coordination of the
strategy within the organisational unities and systems, while Sustainable HRM focuses on
development of human and social capital to achieve organisational sustainability goals. (Kramar,
2014).
The connection of sustainability and HRM is described in a number of terms, such as sustainable
work systems, HR sustainability, sustainable management of HRM, sustainable leadership,
sustainable HRM. All of them acknowledge human and social organisational outcomes and admit
the existence of an impact of HRM results on the organisational success. (Kramar, 2014).
Kramar (2014) discusses the main goals of sustainable HRM, which include balancing efficiency
and sustainability in the long term; sustaining and developing human and social resource base;
assess negative effects of HR activities on the HR base and sources.
23
Researchers actively discuss the role of HRM in promoting and achieving Sustainability. HRM
affects corporate performance through the management and control of employee behaviours.
(Arnoud, 2014). Sustainable behaviour could be promoted by fostering desired attitudes through
empowerment of initiatives among employees. (Renwick et al., 2016).
The roles that HRM can play are specified in the research of Jamali et al. (2015). They provide the
description of four roles HRM plays in organisations and those roles can be used in implementing
sustainability practices. They see HRM through four dimensions: processes (system), people, future
strategy (strategic focus) and day-to-day operations (operational focus). The intersection of those
dimensions forms the main HRM roles. (Figure 5).
Fugure 5. HRM Roles (Jamali et al., 2015).
-The first role is the Strategic Partner. Its focus lays on coordinating HRM strategy with the
organisational strategy and applying it.
-The second role is the Administrative Expert. The role of HRM here is to design, deliver and
communicate HR functions effectively through employees. This is a traditional role, that adds value
to businesses, reduces costs and improves efficiency.
Strategic Partner
Change Agent
Administrative Expert
Employee Champion
Strategic Focus
People System
Operational Focus
24
-Employee Champion is the third role, which is based on maximization of commitment of employees
boosting their contribution towards desired outcomes. To guarantee the excellent performance, HR
provides employees with sufficient resources to meet all their needs.
-The final role is the Change Agent. The task of HRM here includes innovation and transformation
of the organisation by developing plans in response to the challenges of the changes, while at the
same time staying loyal to the traditional culture and values of the organisation.
(Jamali et al., 2015).
This model is not meant exclusively for sustainability policies, but it can be used to explain the roles
and functions of HRM in implementing any strategy, as it allows to choose the objectives and
practices for any desired outcomes.
2.4 GREEN HRM
Green HRM is understood as a part of Sustainable HRM, but it focuses only on corporate
environmental protection activities (Wagner, 2015). Several authors (Masri et al., 2017; Renwick
et al., 2016; Christ et al., 2017; Arnaud et al., 2014; Amin-Chaudhry, 2016; Cheema et al., 2017;
Dumont et al., 2017 and others) state that the formation of Green HRM (GHRM) results from the
connections between HRM and Environmental Management. It enhances the organisation’s
environmental performance by involvement and commitment of employees to environmental
values. The studies about making organisations environmentally friendly through the use of HRM
started in the 1990s. The study of Masri et al. (2017) claims that employees are more motivated to
support green practices, if they receive monetary and non-monetary rewards and if their managers
encourage them to participate by acting in accordance to those green practices themselves. With
the active involvement of employees comes the establishment of a green culture on the
organisation. Performance Management Systems (PMS) direct the performance of employees
towards the environmental goals and ensures the effectiveness of GHRM. To become
environmentally sustainable, the company needs to adopt measuring systems to measure resource
usage and waste. HRM should integrate environmental programs into PMS by proposing
environmental goals, monitoring performance and providing evaluation and feedback by using
green work ratings, which should be included in employees’ appraisals records. (Masri et al.,
2017).
25
3. CONCLUSIONS
Basing on the research, we can conclude that most of the authors agree, that in order to be sustainable,
companies need to take care of Planet, People and Profit. Some of them (Gupta et al., 2016) highlight
the importance of environment over the other elements and identify the concept of sustainability as
a synonym for environmental management; some (Longoni et al., 2016) only focus on environment
and society without highlighting the profit element – bi-dimensional approach; and some (Vildåsen
et al., 2016; Montiel et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014; Isil et al., 2017) say that all three elements are
interconnected and equally vital and only by including these elements in everyday practices a
company can become truly sustainable. HRM Cockpit is based on the same three elements, thus we
can state that if organisations choose the 3 P’s as the outcome for their practices and be active in all
three elements, they can become sustainable.
CHAPTER 2. “OUTPUT” AND BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABILITY
The HRM Cockpit elements, emphasizing the HR Success, are organisational image and mindset,
behaviour and competences of the employees.
Employees have to develop a sustainability mindset, which is an understanding of how natural
environment is interconnected and how your own values, approaches and actions can produce the
greater good for the society. There are three elements of this process:
1. The Knowing: educating yourself about ecology
2. The Being: being a part of the ecosystem
3. The Doing: connecting to the society by developing social sensitivity and being innovative.
(Cohen et al., 2017)
The authors of the articles do not explicitly discuss HR Success as a separate element, but they
view it through the prism of the organisational benefits. Most authors agree on the fact that
engagement in sustainable practices and green behaviours brings benefits to the company. (Rayner
et al., 2018; Bučiūnienė et al., 2012; Eccles at al., 2014). Those include: increased profitability and
customer satisfaction; improved relationships with the local community and public; marketing
advantage over competitors. (Supanti et al., 2015). Bučiūnienė et al. (2012), Ameer et al, (2012)
correspondingly state that sustainability practices have a confirmed positive effect on the financial
outcomes of the organisation in terms of Return on Assets, profit and cash flow, since it cuts
organisational costs and leads to new commercial opportunities and better performance outcomes.
26
Sustainability as well affects the relationship with other stakeholders like investors, bankers,
suppliers, making the organisation more attractive and reliable for them (Longoni et al., 2016).
They state that sustainability practices improve the image of the company, making it more attractive
for customers and for new employees, therefore influencing the company’s return on sustainability
investments (Brockhaus et al., 2017; Magbool et al., 2016).
Suriyankietkaew’s (2016) research provides a statistical evidence that most of the sustainability
practices positively affect customers satisfaction. A sustainable and responsible image of the
company also makes the workers more motivated, engaged and committed, leading to a better
performance and, therefore, better results and a competitive advantage. (Singh et al., 2013; Longoni
et al., 2016). Workers of the companies that actively engage in sustainable activities are more
motivated and more productive in comparison to the less responsible and sustainable organisations.
According to a research, when employees are satisfied with their company’s sustainability
commitment, their engagements goes up to 86 per cent and when the employees are unsatisfied with
the activities, this number goes down to only 37 per cent being fully engaged. (Singh et al., 2013).
Researchers state that it is problematic for many organisations to integrate sustainability strategies
into their business. This incorporation to the core of the organisation is crucial for any business. If
the implementation is active only in the peripheral, the outcomes will never be as beneficial. The
higher costs and the pressure it brings may lead to abandonment of those sustainable practices if
they were not thoroughly integrated into the organisational culture. Companies need to give it time
to achieve sustained competitive advantages. (Schroeder, 2012).
However, some researches indicate that there is insufficient evidence of sustainable practices
affecting financial performance of organisations. (Astara at al., 2017; Wolf, 2013). Others obtained
mixed results and state that the effect of sustainable practices depend on the industry sector, region
and the size of a company (Rothenberg et al., 2015). Similarly, Li et al. (2017) state that the results
are diverse and that small firms benefit from sustainable practices more than large organisations.
The opposite evidence comes from the research of Abri et al. (2017), who claim that sustainability
does not significantly improve financial performance, especially not in small or medium
organisations. This can be due to the higher costs organisations need to spend on sustainability
practices, for example, to train employees and provide other benefits and development opportunities
for them, to adopt new technologies, to design new strategies and incorporate changes. (Eccles et al.,
2014). Small firms have less opportunities to withstand those costs.
27
The previous image of the organisation also plays a crucial role, because if consumers already had a
negative attitude towards the organisation’s practices, the new sustainability programs might be seen
as an insincere and a fake attempt to “greenwash” the image, therefore leading to an even worse
perception. (Brockhaus et al., 2017)
CHAPTER 3. PATH FOR SUSTAINABILITY – “PROCESS”
HRM Cockpit states that the three important elements of the sustainable process are performance
and talent management of the employees, leadership and organisational development and
communication. The authors of the analysed articles agree on the main elements, highlighting the
role of leadership, managers and HR managers (Strand, 2014; Guerci et al., 2014, Xing et al.,
2017), training (Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017), technological innovation (Adams et
al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012), use of incentives (Dahlmann et al.,2017; Abdelmotaal
et al., 2016), role of the employees (Eccles et al.,2012; Wolf, 2013), which corresponds to the
aforementioned elements of the HRM Cockpit. However, they also discuss the roles of other
elements, such as involvement into coopetition and cooperation (Christ et al.,2017; Appelbaum et
al.,2016c), which is not explicitly mentioned in the HRM Cockpit.
In the following part we will have a look on those elements and also discuss a separate group of
researches, dedicated to Green HRM practices. Those practices correspond to the elements of the
sustainability process, mentioned in the HRM Cockpit and include: green management of
organisational culture, green recruitment and selection, green performance management and
appraisal, green training and development, green empowerment and participation and green
reward and compensation.(Masri et al., 2017). Even though the authours only discuss these
practices with regard to the environmental sustainability, we may conclude that their use can be
expanded to the other two dimentions of the Triple Bottom Line.
Another element, that is not emphasized in the HRM Cockpit, is how HRM can cooperate with
CSR and how those two concepts influence each other. According to some authors (Arnoud, 2014,
Bučiūnienė et al., 2012, Berber et al., 2014, Voegtlin et al., 2016), HRM and CSR are deeply
interconnected and this connection needs to be used during sustainable process to achieve the
desired goals. The relationships between HRM and CSR will also be discussed in this chapter.
1. ROLE OF LEADERSHIP
Strand (2014) talk about connections between strategic leadership and corporate sustainability,
that come together with the appearance of top management team (TMT) positions with dedicated
corporate sustainability responsibilities. Those positions are often called ‘‘Chief Sustainability
28
Officers’’ and they have found their way into biggest companies of the world. However, the
existence of those positions alone does not automatically guarantee sustainability of a company.
(Strand, 2014)
Xing et al., (2017) discuss a not-standard view on business and leadership. They discuss the effects
of Taoist philosophy on sustainability. Taoist leaders understand that employee green behaviours
cannot be forced. That is why leaders should adopt Wu Wei, which requires leading with the flow
of nature. This way the employees do not feel coerced and their sustainable and “green” behaviour
will come naturally and spontaneously. Although Taoism strives to minimize the coercive role of
leaders, it never eliminates it altogether. Taoist leaders “transform” their will into their
subordinates' own perceptions. (Xing et al., 2017)
2. ROLE OF EMPLOYEES
According to Eccles et al. (2012), sustainable strategy requires behavioural change within
employees, therefore personal engagement is vital. Sustainable companies are more likely to have
a clear strategy for engaging employees, as they recognize and believe in reasons for a change.
Basing on their research, 90% of the sustainable companies implement large-scale change
successfully, compared to 50% for the traditional companies. Sustainable companies apply their
strategy by: - communicating the influence of the employees contribution, - highlighting the
connection between this contribution and the sustainability goals, - enabling cross-functional
communication and idea exchange. The company has to value the contributions, align actions with
values, and honour the commitments. (Eccles et al., 2012).
Wolf (2013) agrees with the importance of employees in sustainable development. According to
her, managers need to do more than just public sustainability reports. Sustainable management
involves the development of new skills and competences of employees. Employees have unique
knowledge of the company, which helps them to define and adopt the appropriate organizational
structures. The organizational areas of particular relevance are: -clear responsibility assignment, -
experience and qualification of employees in sustainability; -application of appropriate
manufacturing technologies; - adaptation of organizational structure. (Wolf, 2013).
3. ROLE OF INCENTIVES
Dahlmann et al. (2017) and Abdelmotaal et al. (2016) investigate the role of incentives in
improving sustainable performance. Incentives are known to encourage actors to act towards
desired outcomes, as they highlight the tasks that are pivotal for goal achievement. Providing
incentives as a part of a sustainable strategy orients all the stakeholders towards a desired outcome
29
of performance improvement. Dahlmann et al. (2017) propose that “greater inclusiveness of
incentive beneficiaries leads to greater alignment across different hierarchical levels that
strengthen organizational decision-making and operational coordination processes.” They use
“agency theory” as a basis for their ideas about incentives. This theory proposes that incentives
should be provided not only to the top agents of the organization, but to all levels of the existing
hierarchy. This is supposed to create a greater alignment with the interests of the principal.
However, this could potentially lead to distracting and distorting impacts caused by the differences
in statuses. This might reduce efficient information processing and coordination of effort.
(Dahlmann et al., 2017).
4. COOPETITION AND COOPERATION
Another significant way to influence the implementation of sustainable practices is getting
involved into coopetition. According to Christ et al. (2017), exploring and reducing tensions
between competitive strategy and cooperation in striving towards sustainability can lead to
reduction of unsustainability. Coopetition involves using competitive and cooperative strategies at
the same time. Competition is seen as a business driver, however, the idea of importance of
collaboration is becoming more widely considered. Sustainability related coopetition emphasizes
not only economic performance, but also includes environmental and social issues. The most
important factors for success are management commitment, relationship management and
communication management. The functional areas identified with a coopetitive strategy are long-
term outsourcing, supply arrangements, co-production and co-marketing. (Christ et al., 2017).
Appelbaum et al., (2016c) also discuss researches about interaction between companies and other
organizations. They mention merging with other more sustainable companies as a way of boosting
sustainability in your own organization. Coopetition, however, creates a danger of potentially
promoting cartelization and monopolization. (Christ et al., 2017).
5. TEACHING AND TRAINING
Most researchers agree on the fact that any changing initiatives within a company should be
supported by training of the employees. Sustainability-oriented competencies require teaching and
development, especially in companies who strive to become sustainable. According to Aragon-
Correa (2017), sustainability teaching and training has to be: -cross-disciplinary; -broad in scope;
-based in design, implementation, and outcomes; -representative, engaging, and vivid; -inclusive
of issues related to business success and/ or failure.
Baumgartner (2013) talks about a management game called ‘sustainability manager’. His paper
30
presents the key features of this game and describes experiences of its application. It is based on a
business simulation, the aim of which is to model a company using computer technologies. This
tool can be used as a training instrument for sustainability management and can be adapted to
specific training situations. The goal is to provide a knowledge based management game to educate
about competencies of sustainability management. (Baumgartner, 2013)
6. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Attention should be paid to the role of technological innovation in achieving sustainability. A lot
of authors dedicated their papers to this aspect. (Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al.,
2012). The study of Degato (2017) identifies different mechanisms and conditions for building
innovation capacity and analyses the relationship between innovation and social-ecological
sustainability. The analysis confirmed the importance of innovation in green governance and in
value chain for sustainability. The kinds of innovation include product upgrading, process
innovation, market innovation, chain upgrading and environmental upgrading. (Degato, 2017)
Hall et al. (2012) state that “Innovation has been widely regarded as a panacea for sustainable
development, but there remains considerable uncertainty about how it will lead to a more
sustainable society”. Their results conclude, that the link between innovation and sustainability
depends on the type of business and innovation. They confirm, that it does help with sustainable
development but only for businesses which are radical enough to enable strong performance
effects on environment. (Hall et al., 2012)
7. ABILITY-MOTIVATION-OPPORTUNITY THEORY
Cheema et al. (2017) discuss a theory, which defines the areas of HRM affecting sustainability –
the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory. All the practices enhancing the human capabilities and
increasing the human capital lead to better outcomes. The theory highlights the aspects leading to
higher productivity and increased profits and overall organisational success. Those are “ability”,
“motivation” and “opportunity”. The aspects again correspond to the ones mentioned before. The
first aspect is about attraction of high-performing employees and their development, resulting in
employees having the required skills and having the ability to perform well. The second aspect is
motivating employees to ensure their commitment by use of incentives and effective management.
The last aspect gives opportunities to employees to participate in problem-solving and knowledge-
sharing activities and provides facilities and support. (Cheema et al., 2017).
31
8. GREEN HRM PRACTICES
Masri et al. (2017) provide a model connecting GHRM practices with environmental performance
(EP). The practices are green management of organisational culture, green recruitment and
selection, green performance management and appraisal, green training and development, green
empowerment and participation and green reward and compensation. (Figure 6). Now we will
discuss each practice in more details and provide evidence from the srudies of other authors about
the necessity of those practices.
Figure 6. Conceptual model connecting critical GHRM practices for maximized EP. (Masri et al.,
2017).
8.1 GREEN RECRUITMENT
If the organisation is interested in achieving environmental sustainability, it has to select and
recruit people who are also supporting these values. If the organisation builds an image of an
environmentally responsible company, it will be more attractive for people willing to share this
responsibility. Green recruitment makes sure that new employees will fit within the green culture
and will share the company’s values. (Masri et al., 2017). This process is also called employer
32
branding. Recent recruitment possibilities via Internet allow companies to easily communicate
their interests in environmental programs to future employees via the use of websites. (Cheema et
al., 2017). Job descriptions can be used as a tool to attract the employees with the needed values.
Another side of green recruitment is the process itself that can be performed with the use of modern
technology, making it paperless and therefore more ecological. This can also significantly save the
costs, that earlier had to be spend on traditional forms of advertisements and selection procedures.
(Khurshid et al., 2016).
8.2 GREEN TRAINING
Training the employees is one of the main methods that HRM can use to support environmental
programs. Trainings provide the workers with the necessary knowledge and skills and should
include social and environmental issues at all levels. (Masri et al., 2017). Trainings develop
awareness and understanding of environmental issues and show the ways workers can influence
the environment by their actions. (Renwick et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2018; Aragao et al., 2017;
Zibarras et al., 2015). Green trainings should involve all the employees of the company and include
three elements: awareness enhancement, knowledge management and climate building. (Tang et
al., 2018). Online trainings can also reduce paper consumption thus fulfilling environmental goals
of organisations. (Khurshid et al., 2016).
8.3 GREEN MANAGEMENT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Establishment of green organisational culture is the task for top and HR managers. Green HRM is
the main driver of this culture. Defined green culture provides a set of values that reflect the
environmental objectives. This culture should be communicated and accepted by employees to
ensure the achievement of environmental objectives in every department. (Masri et al., 2017).
8.4 GREEN EMPOWERMENT AND PARTICIPATION
HR has to boost employee participation in green practices through empowering them. Employees
should be able to share their thoughts and ideas to feel that they are heard and appreciated. This
helps to form environmental goals. Employees need autonomy to make their own decisions and
be creative. This results in coming up with non-standard ideas and solutions and helps to gather
insider information leading to an improved environmental policy. (Masri et al., 2017; Pinzone et
al., 2016). Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory, as already mentioned above, explains the need
of employee participation in environmental programs to achieve higher effectiveness and
productivity. (Cheema et al., 2017). When employees are provided with opportunities to
33
participate, it stimulates their level of satisfaction, motivation and commitment. (Tang et al., 2018).
The level of employee involvement is related to the success of environmental programs, therefore
employees should be treated as key stakeholders and be empowered to participate. (Zibarras et al.,
2015). HR department has to be aligned with the overall organisations strategy to achieve
environmental sustainability, which leads to a higher level of participation of employees, since
they can see the clear connection between their actions and the final cause. (Langwell et al., 2016).
8.5 GREEN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND APPRAISAL
Embedding environmental issues into PMA (Performance Management and Appraisal) is
necessary to go beyond CSR and to progress in achieving environmental objectives. (Renwick et
al., 2016). Environmental performance standards help to measure how successful the
implementation of environmental programs is. (Renwick et al., 2013). HR has to provide feedback
to promote proper values and establish sanctions for violation of the regulations. (Masri et al.,
2017). The green performance appraisal has to aim on improving skills and green behaviour of
employees. The green initiatives from the employees have to be appreciated and reinforced to
stimulate recurrence of such behaviour. (Khurshid et al., 2016). When the employees feel
accountable for their behaviour it provides higher motivation and better performance. (Dubois et
al., 2012).
8.6 GREEN REWARD
Using intrinsic and extrinsic motivators in the form of rewards is proved to enhance employee
green behaviour and performance. (Zibarras et al., 2015; Guerci et al., 2016; Renwick et al., 2013;
Dubois et al., 2012). Green HR can benefit from composing effective compensation systems, as
it helps to avoid undesirable actions and motivate ecologically sustainable performance. The
rewards have to be connected to the results of environmental programs. The rewards could be
monetary-based (such as bonuses), non-monetary based (extra days off), recognition-based
(awards, publicity), positive rewards (feedback). (Masri et al., 2017). There is evidence of the
positive relationship between the total pay of CEOs and other senior managers and the level of
environmental engagement of the company. (Cheema et al., 2017; Renwick et al., 2013).
Tang et al. (2018) also mention the importance of five aspects: clear green vision, green learning
climate, various communication channels, offering green practices and encouraging green
involvement. Green vision includes a creation of green values and culture. A green learning
climate and communication channels makes sure that employees are aware about the
environmental issues and company’s green objectives. Offering participation opportunities and
34
encouraging initiatives and involvement can motivate employees and make them feel important.
To help them realise that they have power to influence the situation, they can be offered to write
newsletters, develop problem solving in groups, brainstorming sessions, setting up green teams
and support their green ideas and initiatives. (Tang et al., 2018).
9. HRM AND CSR
According to numerous researchers (Arnoud, 2014, Bučiūnienė et al., 2012, Berber et al., 2014,
Voegtlin et al., 2016), CSR is deeply connected to HRM. The HRM role is overflown with CSR
related tasks, like introducing ethical standards, attraction of new employees through sustainable
employment practices, motivation to social involvement. HRM practices that encourage CSR
engagement aim to positively affect employee behaviours in order to increase overall organizational
performance. (Arnoud, 2014)
HRM is successful in achieving this goal, as it is able to gain employee support to strengthen
commitment, which is necessary for fruitful application of CSR. The relationship between HRM
and CSR is claimed to be two-fold. On the one hand, HRM is seen as an object of CSR. Organisations
dedicated to being socially responsible, support and develop well-being of their employees and
provide them with desired working conditions. Since HRM is entitled of taking care of the same
aspects, it can be successfully used to channel those CSR initiatives to all of the organisational
departments. On the other hand, it is the role of employees to implements CSR initiatives in their
everyday activities. Those activities are interactions with clients and other stakeholders and it
indicates how socially responsible the organisation is. (Bučiūnienė et al., 2012)
Berber et al. (2014) also highlight HRM as a dimension which is included in CSR practices. The
authors discover the relations between employees and managers as it is a factor leading to successful
CSR application. Aside from recruitment, training, motivation and rewards systems, they highlight
career development, flexible management of working time and job rotation, communication and
information flow, profit-sharing and share ownership schemes, looking after health and well-being
of employees, providing a safe workplace, and a balance between working and family life. (Berber
at al., 2014).
9.1 CONTRIBUTIONS OF CSR INTO HRM AND HRM INTO CSR
Voegtlin et al. (2016) agree that HRM impacts the way CSR is interpreted, developed and transferred
into actions. The organisation’s understanding of CSR practices alters the way of treatment of
employees. Authors provide a description of possible contributions of CSR into HRM and of HRM
35
into CSR. The first dimension the contributions can be highlighted in is Recruitment and selection.
HRM can check potential employees for their sensitivity towards CSR and select employees based
on their fit to the CSR- values. CSR can help to attract the best talents as people value CSR aspects.
CSR can inform HRM selection procedures on issues of diversity and equality. The other dimension
is Appraisal and motivation. HRM can foster commitment to CSR and create a socially-responsible
culture. CSR can help to appraise social HR practices, to motivate employees, foster commitment
and organizational identification. The next prominent contributions are notices in Compensation and
reward system. HRM can develop long-term compensation schemes and search for incentives that
contribute to CSR goals. HRM can reward economic, social and ecological innovations. CSR can
help to define goals HRM can use to incentivise and reward employees. CSR can introduce standards
for decent work. Finally, CSR and HRM influence each other during Training and development.
HRM can inform employees about CSR and help to educate them. CSR can train HRM in developing
socially responsible HR practices. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)
A group of studies join Voegtlin and his fellow researchers in investigation of the relationship
between corporate sustainability practices and organizational attractiveness in the eyes of the future
employees. (Magbool et al., 2016; Rok et al., 2014). Authors notice that one of the main issues for
modern HRM is the shortage of highly skilled employees. They use the Social identity theory
which states that individuals’ identity depends on how they see themselves within a group. People
tend to compare themselves to a lower quality group to make sure they are doing better to boost their
self-confidence. This affiliation also concerns the organization they work for. The reputation of a
company is influenced by their actions concerning social and political issues. Employees will benefit
from positive reputation and suffer from negative reputation. Sustainability is able to improve the
reputation of an organisation. Therefore, companies implementing CSR will help HRM to attract
better employees. Job seekers base their decisions only on the prevailing characteristics of the
company, since not all the information is accurate or complete. This is explainable by the signalling
theory, which suggests that people see the organisation’s performance through the information it
promotes. Therefore, an organisation can choose itself what kind of information they want to send
out to attract employees. The organisation’s commitment to CSR reflects positively on the image
the people receive. (Magbool et al., 2016).
To guarantee the commitments to CSR throughout the whole organisation, the process has to include
non-management workforce - employees. HRM is the department that can contribute to a higher
level of employee involvement. CSR initiatives tend to fail if its implementation lacks the
36
involvement of employees and if socially responsible ideas are not integrated in the culture of the
organisation. (Singh et al., 2013).
Employees leverage and drive such CSR activities as promotion of health and safety of the
workplace, diversity and ethics training, personal development. Employees can participate in CSR
activities through volunteering or providing their skills and expertise to capacity-building projects.
Organisations can incorporate CSR into job designs and descriptions to ensure coordination with the
mission and sustainability strategies. Employees can be motivated to achieve CSR goals through the
use of constant feedback, evaluation and rewards from the management. Within this situation, HR
can perform a functional or a proactive role (or both). The functional role consists of implementation
and management of CSR initiatives for the employees, including providing the assessment of
feedback from employees and offering consultation to managers based on this information. The
proactive role contributes to co-development of the organizational strategy in a socially responsible
direction. It is based on HR interests in creating a responsible culture and responsible leaders through
teaching and developing CSR specialists. Therefore, HRM is believed to be coordinating CSR
practices, involving enhancement of the employment relationship, which is necessary for the
creation of fruitful relationships with stakeholders. This can consequently direct the company
towards a socially responsible behaviour. Singh et al. (2013) state that “armed with a strong and
committed organizational culture reinforced by responsible Human Resource Management
practices, the organizations can achieve heights of success by improved profitability, employee
morale, customer satisfaction, legal compliance and societal approval for its existence.” By actively
using HRM in promotion of CSR values, the organisation can guarantee the orientation of employees
towards those values and the well-being of the whole organisation without adding any extra costs.
(Singh et al., 2013).
9.2 TYPOLOGY OF CSR-HRM PERSPECTIVES
Voegtlin et al. (2016) also provide a typology of CSR-HRM perspectives. (Table 3) The authors
introduce Instrumental CSR-HRM, Social integrative SCR-HRM and Political CSR-HRM.
Instrumental perspective aims at profit maximization. CSR and HRM influence each other to
improve financial performance. Social integrative perspective strives to create value for society,
while integrating economic and ethical concerns into strategy. Relationship between CSR and
HRM is seen as involvement of practices that improve employee well-being, motivation and
overall stakeholder value. Political CSR-HRM fulfil obligations towards society as a political and
economic actor. The strategic priority is to create a proactive political strategy to advance
37
institutional conditions. CSR and HRM addresses power imbalances and employee citizenship
behaviours. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)
Table 3. Typology of CSR–HRM perspectives. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)
Instrumental CSR-
HRM
Social integrative CSR-
HRM
Political CSR-HRM
Theories Economic theory of the
firm Instrumental CSR
and “hard” HRM
approaches
Value creation stakeholder
theory Integrative CSR and
“soft” HRM approaches
Political theories of
democracy. Political CSR
and critical HRM
approaches
Purpose of the
firm
Profit maximization Value creation for society Fulfil obligations towards
society as a political and
economic actor.
Strategic
priorities
Economic
considerations dominate
strategy
Economic and ethical
concerns are integrated into
strategy
Proactive political
strategy to advance
institutional conditions
Role of CSR-
HRM
CSR and HRM can
reinforce each other to
improve firm financial
performance
CSR and HRM can
reinforce each other to
create benefit for the firm
and its’ stakeholders
CSR and HRM can
reinforce each other to
help address institutional
deficits
Employees as
stakeholders
Employees as strategic
human resources are
important stakeholders
for firm success
Employees are human
resources and valuable
stakeholders
Employees as citizens
with rights and
obligations towards the
firm and society
Issues of
employee
involvement
CSR-HRM as
involvement practices
that contribute to firm
performance (e.g.
through increasing
employee commitment)
CSR-HRM as involvement
practices that improve at
the same time employee
well-being, motivation and
overall stakeholder value
CSR-HRM as
involvement practices that
address power imbalances
and employee citizenship
behaviour
Power and
conflict of
interests
Multiple actors are
considered relevant
(strategically). In case of
a conflict shareholder
interests dominate.
Multiple actors are
considered relevant
(strategically and morally).
Interests are assumed to be
unitary. They can be
aligned to create shared
value.
Multiple institutions and
actors are considered
relevant. Plurality of
interests that are difficult
to reconcile
Key themes in
CSR-HRM
CSR-HRM and
performance. Micro-
foundation of CSR
through HRM
The role of CSR-HRM in
stakeholder integration. The
role of CSR-HRM in
integrating economic,
social and environmental
activities
CSR-HRM and the
responsibility
implications of changing
employment
relationships. The role of
CSR-HRM in business
(self-) regulation. The
critical role of power and
conflict in negotiating
CSR-HRM aspects
38
9.3 HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS
The use of High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) is believed to be an instrument leading to the
desired HR and CSR outcomes. The HPWS are the HRM systems focused on development of skills,
commitment and productivity of employees. It enhances the performance, high commitment to HRM
and CSR practices, leading to successful financial outcomes of the organisation. It provides evidence
for the idea that good management ensures corporate social responsibility. (Zhang et al., 2014).
Parkers et al. (2013) support this idea, stating that if the management is involved in active modelling
of responsible performance, thorough communication of organisational values and culture within
the employees, together with the dynamic application of HR procedures, they can build socially
responsible organisations.
However, some researches show that in practice the HR managers are not fully involved in CSR
processes yet. The results, provided by Renwick et al. (2016) show a limited extent to which HR
managers undertake initiatives to increase socially responsible behaviour, even if they have
personal “responsible” views and values. They undertake a “passive approach” as they do not see
CSR as a priority of the HR department and they lack the resources to develop those initiatives.
(Renwick et al., 2016)
10. CONCLUSIONS
Since all the strategies should be implemented into practice, the process of implementation plays a
crucial role in affecting the outcomes. Authors conclude, that there are ways to stimulate the active
application of sustainable strategies, namely-using incentives (Dahlmann et al., 2017), involving
leaders and employees in the process (Strand, 2014; Xing et al.,2017; Eccles et al. 2012; Wolf, 2013);
providing training (Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017), supporting technological innovation
(Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012), getting involved in coopetition to strive towards
sustainability with the help of collaboration (Christ et al., 2017; Appelbaum et al., 2016c). All of
this can be done with an active involvement of HRM into sustainability policy. The HRM practices
can include training, involvement of employees into sustainability processes, motivation, constant
communication, feedback, assessment and appraisal. (Fadilah et al., 2012).
HRM Cockpit includes almost all of the mentioned elements – leadership (motivation, use of
incentives), performance and talent development (e.g. training) and organisational development (e.g.
innovations), except for getting involved into coopetition with other organisations. HRM Cockpit’s
elements are also consistent with the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory (by Cheema et al.,
39
2017); as well as with the discussed Green HRM practices, namely: green management of
organisational culture, green performance management and appraisal, green recruitment and
selection, green training and development, and green reward and compensation green empowerment
and participation, (Masri et al., 2017), which can be coordinated with performance and talent
development and with the role of leader.
However, HRM Cockpit does not explicitly emphasize the connections between HRM and CSR,
whereas these two concepts impact each other greatly. HRM has a significant impact on the
understanding, communicating, developing and enactment of CSR. Accordingly, organisations’
ideas of CSR influence the way of communication and treatment of employees. (Voegtlin et al.,
2016). Therefore, involving both these programs into organisational sustainability strategy and
letting CSR and HRM work together would be beneficial for the company.
CHAPTER 4. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MODELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY- “INPUT”
Sustainable practices develop differently in organisations. The level of development depends on
how important the company finds this aspect, how motivated the people are to act more sustainable
and which strategies are chosen to achieve the desired level of sustainability. The authors agree
with the HRM Cockpit’s statement about the importance of the integration of HR strategy into
organisational strategy (Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017). The organisational strategy,
as follows from the Cockpit logic, defines the desired goals and therefore influences the whole
process, policy and practices of the HR. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). The HR policy and strategy
needs to be incorporated into all of the practices and departments. Managers have to agree on the
way the strategy can be implemented into the practices. There are different models and theories
explaining how this can be done and why it plays a pivotal role.
1. FIVE STAGES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Depending on the level of integration of sustainability into the strategy, Svensson et al. (2016)
highlight five different stages of sustainability. They suggest that companies may view
sustainability as: -a compliance issue (something forced by law); -a cost to be minimized (only
deserved a minimum amount of spending); -an opportunity to develop and sustain competitive
advantage.
The five different stages are:
“Stage 1. Noncompliance, where an organization does not engage in any sustainable business
practices
40
Stage 2. Compliance, where an organization complies to rules and regulations (minimum legal
requirements) or due to NGO or public pressure
Stage 3. Beyond compliance, when organizations discover the savings and payoffs of going
further than compliance can far outweigh the initial investments
Stage 4. Fully integrated, where sustainability is part of the organization’s strategy
Stage 5. Where organizations are “born” sustainable without passing through the other stages.”
(Svensson et al., 2016)
2. SIX-STEPS IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
One of the frameworks is the six-steps implementation framework proposed by Tasleem et al.
(2017). It corresponds the sustainable performance with multifaceted managerial dimensions. (See
figure 4). The six steps are:
1. identifying stakeholder’s requirements;
2. establishing enterprise vision and sustainability goals;
3. adopting strategies, systems and standardization;
4. aligning technologies, core capabilities and culture;
5. excelling sustainability performance;
6. progressing sustainable improvement with review and feedback.
3. S2AVE
Tasleem et al. (2017) also discuss other frameworks such as S2AVE (Shareholder and Social
Added Value with Environment Restoration) by Grayson et al. (2008). It emphasizes that
companies can effectively include all the three elements of Triple Bottom Line in their work at the
same time. The 10 steps of S2AVE are:
1. Setting vision for sustainability innovation
2. Considering sustainability an imperative part of strategy
3. Embed sustainability in all business aspects
4. Stressing actions instead of words
5. Implement a committee for managing sustainability
6. Incorporate defined rules
7. Identify and involve stakeholders for support
8. Enhance people power
9. Integration of key networks and alignment of business systems
10. Proper documentation and reporting of sustainability performance
(Tasleem et al., 2017).
4. CSM CYCLE
Another interesting model was created by McElroy et al. (2012), who presented Corporate
Sustainability Management (CSM) Cycle. It is executed in six steps:
41
1. CSM function initiation
2. Identifying stakeholders
3. Establishing performance standards
4. Gauging performance
5. Planning for strategies and interventions
6. Implementation of planned strategies and interventions.
(McElroy et al., 2012)
5. SUSTAINABLE SERVICE-ORIENTED BUSINESS MODEL
Sugiyama et al. (2012) dedicate their paper to a sustainable service-oriented business model
focusing on social capital. Companies need to transform their businesses to more service-centric
ones and create social capital with customers to sustain their businesses. As a result, the following
five strategic elements for corporate sustainability were highlighted:
1. Product (creates the value for customers)
2. Place (the environmental elements)
3. People
4. Perspective (integrates corporate internal and external resources)
5. Program (builds and promotes social capital between customers and employees).
(Sugiyama et al., 2012)
6. CONCLUSIONS
The described theories about the effective sustainability strategies highlight the importance of
integrating it with the organisational strategy. (Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017). This
is also emphasized by HRM Cockpit under “vertical coordination”. HRM Cockpit includes a
“horizontal coordination” as well, which means that the strategy has to be embedded into all the
practices and departments. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). Authors state, that the strategy has to
reflect the mission, vision and goals of the organisation in order to make employees feel their
contribution and responsibility. To help them with this process, the strategy has to be properly
communicated towards employees and managers and the acceptance of it must be ensured.
Tasleem et al. (2017) and McElroy et al. (2012) highlight the importance of involving all the
stakeholders into supporting and implementing the strategy, which, again, corresponds with the
HRM Cockpit guidance towards an effective sustainable strategy. They also agree with the
valuableness of involving managers into sustainability programs to get their support, which it is
stated to be one of the most crucial factors in HRM Cockpit. However, authors provide no
information on the importance of the HR capacity (such as knowledge, qualities and attitudes of
HR), mentioned by HRM Cockpit as one of the elements of the “Input”.
42
CHAPTER 5. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES AND REPORTING
1. PRESENTING MEASURING AND REPORTING MODELS AND STANDARDS
In order to see how successful the implemented sustainability strategy and practices are, companies
need to evaluate their progress and effects of the outcomes. To do that, a suitable measuring and
reporting framework is essential. It is crucial that such framework includes indicators to measure
sustainability. The effects of company’s practices need to be traced in social and environmental
dimensions and connected to the overall company’s success. HRM Cockpit accentuates the
importance of the measurements process by talking about the significance of choosing Success
factors- factors that the organisation needs to choose itself. For example, if the organisation is
struggling with the low level of involvement of employees, they need to include factors like
motivation, empowerment, respect, etc. After those factors are chosen, the company can select a
number of indicators, which will help them to see how successful their performance is for those
factors. The measurement can be done by the use of interviews and questionnaires.
(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). Let us see what the other frameworks offered by the authors of the
analysed articles are.
Authors state, that the main issue with creating such a framework is that the indicators for each
three dimensions of sustainability are measured in different units. This makes it harder to connect
and compare the results from different dimensions. The following characteristics should be
existent in the measurement system:
-coordination with organisational strategy;
-defined and transparent purpose;
-it has to be relevant and easy to maintain and simple to understand and use;
-provide fast and accurate feedback;
-link performance with the goals of the organisation;
-stimulate improvement.
(Butnariu et al., 2015).
Many authors describe measuring systems based on the three elements of the Triple Bottom Line
and emphasizing the possible indicators for each dimension. Thus, the possible indicators for the
environmental dimension are: levels of recycling and waste, level of emissions, use of hazardous
materials, energy efficiency, ecological initiatives, etc. Indicators for the social dimension can be:
relationship with employees, retention rates, level of participation, equality and diversity levels,
43
work accidents and illnesses, existence and availability of training programs, etc. Economic activity
can be measured by profitability, return on investments and on capital, debt ratio, cost reduction,
brand value, etc. (Venkatraman et al., 2015; Reilly et al., 2014; Butnariu et al., 2015; Svensson et
al., 2016; Bonson et al., 2015; Schulz et al., 2016).
Basing on the NVivo analysis, the following table was composed. (Table 4) It provides the references
to the authors, depending on which models or standards they mentioned in their articles.
Table 4. Measuring and reporting models and standards. (Own elaboration)
Measuring and Reporting models and standards Authors
DACSI Index Kocmanova et al., (2015)
The Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes Skare et al., (2012)
Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) Indices
Montiel et al., (2014) Ethibel Sustainability Index
Calvert Social Index
Global Resporting Index (GRI)
Vigneau et al., (2015); Montiel et al., (2014);
Bonson et al., (2015); Asif et al., (2013); Urbaniec,
(2015); Alonso-Almeida et al., (2013); Calu et al.,
(2015); Ehnert et al., (2016); Jamali et al., (2015)
Toxic Release Inventory scale (TRI) Schulz et al., (2016)
Balanced Scorecard
Kalender et al., (2016); Reilly et al., (2014);
Schaltegger et al., (2015); Tabatabaei et al., (2017);
Hansen et al., (2016)
The Sustainable Economic, Environmental, Social
and Corporate Governance Model (SEESG) Kocmanova et al., (2017)
ISO 26000
Albu et al., (2013) ILP Core Conventions
The Prince of Wales’ Accounting for Sustainability
Project (A4S)
Triple Bottom Line indicators Venkatraman et al., (2015); Reilly et al., (2014);
Butnariu et al., (2015); Svensson et al., (2016);
Bonson et al., (2015); Schulz et al., (2016)
44
2. GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE
We provide a particular attention to GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) as it is currently the most
popular reference. It has become a part of the framework for mandatory sustainability reporting in a
number of countries. GRI has become a global reference and increases its adoption every year
(Vigneau et al., 2015; Montiel et al., 2014; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2013) The GRI reports reach forty
percent of all sustainability reports worldwide. GRI is based on the Triple Bottom Line providing
sets of indicators for each dimension. Opponents of this approach mention that the amount of
proposed indicators is too large, making it complicated and rather expensive for companies to follow.
(Bonson et al., 2015).
Urbaniec (2015) provides a table discussing sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI
guidelines. (Table 5). She states, that there are three categories- environmental, economic and social
and she explains which aspects are connected to those categories.
Table 5. Sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI guidelines. (Urbaniec, 2015).
Category Aspects
Economic Economic performance, market presence, indirect economic impact,
procurement practices
Environmental
Materials, Energy, Water, Biodiversity, Emission, Effluents and waste,
products and services, compliance, transport, overall, supplier
environmental assessment, environmental grievance mechanisms
Soci
al
Labour
Practices and
Decent Work
Employment, labour/management relations, occupational health and
safety, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity, equal
remuneration for women and men, supplier assessment for labour
practices, labour practices grievance mechanisms
Human
Rights
Investment, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective
bargaining, child labour, forced or compulsory labour, security
practices, indigenous rights, supplier human rights assessment, human
rights grievance mechanisms
Society
Local communities, anti-corruption, public policy, anti-competitive
behaviour, compliance, supplier assessment for impact on society,
grievance mechanisms for impacts on society
Product
Responsibility
Customer health and safety, Product and service labelling, marketing
communications, customer privacy, compliance
45
Authors also talk about relationships between the HRM and reporting and measuring initiatives.
They stated that GRI indicators can be incorporated to HRM policies. (Jamali et al., 2015; Ehnert et
al., 2016). Jamali et al., (2015) provides a visual overview of how GRI indicators are connected to
HRM dimension. (Table 6)
Table 6. Affinities between GRI indicators and HRM dimensions. (Jamali et al., 2015)
GRI Indicator HRM dimension
Labour practices and
decent work
performance
indicators
Employment
Labour/management relations
Occupational health and safety
Training and education
Diversity and equal opportunity
Human rights
performance
indicators
Investment and procurement practices
Non-discrimination
Freedom of association and collective
bargaining
Abolition of child labour
Prevention of forced and compulsory labour
Complaints and grievance practices
Security practices
Indigenous rights
Society performance
indicators
Community
Compliance
We can notice that Jamali et al., (2015), believe that GRI indicators, such as indicators of labour
practices and decent work, human right and society performance are deeply connected with HRM
dimension, which meant that HRM with its actions can have a substantial impact on those indicators.
3. THE BALANCED SCORECARD
The Balanced Scorecard is another popular model among authors of the analysed articles (Reilly et
al., 2014; Kalender et al., 2016; Radu, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2015; Tabatabaei et al., 2017). They
see it as the most suitable model for measuring sustainability. It provides feedback on the internal
business processes and the external outcomes of those actions. It is not made to create new strategies,
but it can enhance the existing ones leading to its’ effective implementation. It can be used as an
improvement tool for finding the most vital practices and results. The Balanced Scorecard helps to
set goals for key components of performance and to measure the progress on the way of achieving
46
those goals. When parameters of sustainability are included into the Balanced Scorecard, it makes it
suitable and effective to examine sustainable performance and development of the organisation. It
integrates all three dimensions of sustainability and establishes coordination between the strategic
and operative levels of the organisation. Although opponents of this system notice that it is
problematic to link sustainability measures to a company’s financial outcomes and strategies.
(Kalender et al., 2016).
Figure 7. The general framework of Sustainable BSC. (Kalender et al., 2016).
Figure 7 provides the visual representation of the Balanced Scorecard with additional sustainability
parameters – Social and Environmental. It emphasizes the importance of each dimension of
company’s mission and strategy. Since each company has its own perception of sustainability, the
indicators chosen to measure it will be different, depending on the strategy and goals of the
organisation. The number of indicators for each dimension will can also vary in connection with
what the company actually needs to measure. (Kalender et al., 2016).
4. CONCLUSION
Measuring the effects of sustainability practices provides companies with the information about the
influence they have on the environment and society. They see how their actions impact the end
results and gives them a feeling of accountability and responsibility, which in turn stimulates better
47
performance. There are numerous available measuring and reporting models, indexes, indicators
which help organisations to see how sustainable their work is. The most used models are GRI and
Balanced Scorecard. Those models are based on the Triple Bottom Line elements. Authors
emphasize the ways HRM can be involved into composition and implementation of measurement
models. The linkage can be traced in the dimensions of Labour practices and decent work, Human
rights and Society. (Bučiūnienė et al., 2012; Tabatabaei 2017; Ehnert et al., 2016). HR can also be
coordinated with the Balanced Scorecard model, where HRM can contribute to Learning and Growth
dimension by providing trainings and development programs, Environmental dimension by
stimulating and promoting ecological initiatives within employees, Social dimension by promoting
human rights, health and safety of the workplace. HR can also coordinate internal processes of
organisations by controlling and stimulating performance of workers and therefore influence the
economic outcomes of the company. The Balanced Scorecard and the GRI model are similar to the
HRM Cockpit measuring system. They are all based on the Triple Bottom Line and are meant to be
used with a set of indicators to assess the organisation’s success in achieving sustainability goals.
All the models emphasize the role of the organisational mission and strategy. They also include
parameters of sustainability which facilitates the measurement process. However, the GRI’s
indicators are predetermined, whereas the indicators of the Balanced Scorecard and of HRM Cockpit
can vary depending on the organisational strategy and goals, making those two systems more flexible
and easy to use.
CHAPTER 6. OTHER SUSTAINABLE HRM MODELS VS. HRM COCKPIT
Sustainable HRM models are meant to translate the theoretical implications and evidence into
practice of real organisations. This area still lacks research and transparent results of the
effectiveness of such models. A highly limited number of models were discussed in the studied
articles. The ones mentioned by the authors are Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced
Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017) and Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model (De Prins et
al., 2014). We will discuss both of the models and compare them to HRM Cockpit.
1. SUSTAINABLE HRM MODEL BASED ON THE BALANCED SCORECARD
Tabatabaei et al. (2017) present a Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard
approach (Figure 8).
The first level of this model situates Sustainable HRM within Strategic Management. This again
highlights the importance of coordinating HRM policy with the organisational strategy and of
identifying the path, which the organization should follow. This involves identification of
48
sustainability strategies and sustainability needs. Sustainability strategies should create a clear path
instead of just showing the destination. Tabatabaei et al. (2017) state, that “Sustainable HRM offer
the best capability an organization can have to change, adapt and influence its environment in a way
that maximizes its performance over time.”
The existing sustainability should be compared with the desired sustainability, which will help to
identify the Sustainable HRM gap. The objectives are shaped by the environment and this will
influence the nature of the strategic plan of the organisation, which will in turn influence all the other
strategies. The second level of the model is Sustainable HRM Strategies. The strategies are divided
into four perspectives, including learning and growth, internal processes, stakeholders and value
creation. Those perspectives cover all factors, that have an impact on the performance and that
enable the organisation to develop the future strategy. The proposed model aims to create a balance
between internal and external stakeholders. It helps to develop business processes in accordance
with the sustainable HRM strategies and to achieve Sustainable HRM goals. (Tabatabaei et al.,
2017).
49
Figure 8. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017)
3. RESPECT OPENNESS CONTINUITY (ROC) MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE HRM
De Prins et al. (2014) came up with a different sustainable HRM model called ‘Respect Openness
Continuity (ROC)’. This model is based on analysis of potential contributions, which strategic HRM
could bring to sustainable HRM. The authors transformed the Triple Bottom Line elements of
Elkington (1997) into ‘Respect, Openness and Continuity’ (ROC).
50
The model reflects the elements of sustainable HRM (see Table 7). Those are:
1. respect for stakeholders and employees (Respect). This element corresponds with “People”
element of the Triple Bottom Line and presupposes providing the employees with autonomy,
allowing them to participate, stimulate their engagement and develop their talents.
2. environmental awareness and outside-in perspective on HRM (Openness). This element resembles
the “Planet” of the 3P’s, but goes a bit further, including not only the environmental issues, but also
issues of complying to laws, governmental regulations, unions, societal standards.
3. a long-term perspective for economic and social sustainability and individual employability
(Continuity). Continuity parallels “Profit” and states that organisations aim to survive over a long
time and HRM has a substantial impact on this process. It brings influence by managing employees
in a way that stimulates their productivity and maximises profits of the organisation.
(De Prins et al. 2014)
Table 7. The Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model of Sustainable HRM. (De Prins et al. 2014)
People
Respect
Planet
Openness
Profit
Continuity
Credo “Searching for the
Human in HRM”
“HR from the outside
in” “Long-term scope of HRM”
Th
eory
Mainstream
strategic HR—
perspective revisited
Resource-based view
revisited Strategic fit revisited
Long-term performance/long-
term employment
relationships revisited
Theoretical
antecedents
Ethical and critical HR
theory Institutional and stakeholder theory
Pra
ctic
es Horizontal/thematic
Talent, Engagement,
Empowerment, Health
and Well-being,
Employee participation,
etc.
Diversity, Ageing,
Work-Life balance,
Ecology, Stakeholders,
Labour market, etc.
Employability, Careers,
Succession, Learning
organisations, Workplace
innovation, etc.
Vertical/
transformational
Sustainable recruitment, selection, training, development, compensation, leadership,
change, culture, etc.
51
3. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS
We compared the models according to the important characteristics an effective sustainability
model should possess. As stated by Savaneviciene et al. (2014), a sustainability model should
include drivers of sustainability, characteristics of sustainable HRM (such as coordination with the
organisational strategy, flexibility, knowledge orientation and coordination with the needs of
stakeholders), practices and outcomes of HRM. Basing on the crucial factors, discussed in the
analysed articles, we would like to add the importance of feedback, measurements and rewards.
HRM Cockpit and ROC model (De Prins et al., 2014) are both based on the Triple Bottom Line
of Elkington (1997), which explains the outcomes of the models – effects on “People”, “Planet”
and “Profit”. The model by Tabatabaei et al., (2017) does not explicitly define the outcomes, leaving
the sustainability for personal interpretation. However, its explanation of practices provides a
thorough overview of the processes which characterise the organisation as sustainable. The
processes involve learning and growth, which presupposes knowledge orientation, sustainable
internal processes and stakeholder orientation. HRM Cockpit clearly discusses the crucial
processes as well, such as performance and talent management, leadership and organisational
development making the use of this instrument beneficial for the organisation. All three models
are strong in defining the sustainable practices, emphasizing the role of empowerment, motivation,
sustainable selection processes, work-life balance, innovations, and flexibility. HRM Cockpit and
Balanced Scorecard Model highlight the importance of communication, whereas the ROC model
does not explicitly state that. Communication is proved to play a pivotal role, as it helps employees
to understand and accept the sustainability policy. ROC model also does not discuss the
coordination of the organisational strategy with HRM policy, while it is clearly mentioned as a
crucial factor in the Balanced Scorecard Model and in HRM Cockpit. The drivers of Sustainability
are not clearly mentioned by the models, however they all try to place sustainability in the context
of society, which brings economical, ecological and institutional pressures. Unlike the ROC
models, Balanced Scorecard model and HRM Cockpit do specify the importance of providing
evaluations and feedback, but only HRM Cockpit provides a measurement system and a system to
choose critical sustainability indicators. Taking into consideration all of these factors, we can
conclude, that HRM Cockpit is a unique instrument, which brings all the theoretical evidence into
practice and answers all the needs of organisations willing to become more sustainable.
52
CONCLUSIONS
We would like to finish the dissertation with the quote of Albert Einstein, who once said: “We
cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Today his words sound more relevant than ever. This idea emphasizes the need for a dramatic
change in the way organisations work in order to face modern challenges and create a better future
for everyone. HRM Cockpit presents an instrument to implement those changes. It brings theory
into practice, striving to help organisations to become sustainable.
In this Masters dissertation we tried to analyse how suitable and effective HRM Cockpit is for
companies that want to apply a successful sustainability policy. In order to do this, we analysed
171 scientific articles to answer a number of questions and to connect those answers with the HRM
Cockpit method. The questions were:
-What are the conditions for an organisation to be classified as “Sustainable”?
-What are the ways to become more Sustainable?
-How can we measure Sustainability?
-How can we implement Sustainable practices through HRM?
Concerning our first question, most of the authors agree on the fact, that the main condition of
sustainability is being active in all three elements of the Triple Bottom Line- namely, People,
Planet and Profit (e.g. Svensson et al., 2016; Høgevold et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2015; Fadhilah
et al., 2012; Kramar, 2014; Biggemann et al., 2014; Reilly et al., 2014; Venkatraman et al., 2015).
We can state that HRM Cockpit agrees with those elements of sustainability, since these are the
chosen components of the “HR Impact” and those are the objectives of the sustainability policies.
To answer the second question, we can state, that in order to become more sustainable, companies
need to incorporate the sustainability practices into their strategy and mission and monitor if those
practices are consistently used in everyday activities. The best way for companies to do that is to
actively use HRM in promoting and implementing sustainability. The ways for HR to do that can
vary, but the authors emphasize the following aspects, which HR should actively implement
sustainability in: recruitment and selection (Voegtlin et al., 2016, De Prins et al., 2014); appraisal
and motivation (Voegtlin et al., 2016; Strand, 2014; Xing et al.,2017; Eccles et al. 2012; Wolf, 2013);
compensation and reward system (Dahlmann et al., 2017; Voegtlin et al., 2016; Abdelmotaal et al.,
53
2016); training and development (Voegtlin et al., 2016; Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017);
supporting technological innovation (Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012). Same
ideas were implied by the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity model by Cheema et al. (2017) and in the
description of Green HRM practices by Masri et al. (2017).
HRM Cockpit includes all of the mentioned elements – leadership (e.g. motivation, rewards),
performance and talent development (e.g. recruitment, training) and organisational development
(e.g. innovations). HRM Cockpit also specifies the importance of coordination of organisational
strategy with sustainable HRM strategy- the aspect which is claimed by many authors to play a
crucial role (Savaneviciene et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014; Dahlmann et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2013;
Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017).
The most significant characteristic of HRM Cockpit instrument is that it provides a methodology to
measure the success of sustainability programs. This leads us to the answers to the third question. In
accordance with the most popular and most used measuring systems- GRI and Balanced Scorecard
- HRM Cockpit method is also based on the Triple Bottom Line elements. All these instruments
are presupposing the use of indicators to measure the success rates of sustainability practices. HRM
Cockpit, unlike GRI, is more flexible with the indicators, as they are not predetermined and may
vary depending on the organisational goals. Having these characteristics, HRM Cockpit facilitates
the measurement process and provides HRM managers and top managers with a visual
representation of how effective the performance is in achieving the organisational objectives.
(Vigneau et al., 2015; Montiel et al., 2014; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2013; Bonson et al., 2015;
Urbaniec, 2015; Kalender et al., 2016; Reilly et al., 2014; Radu, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2015;
Tabatabaei et al., 2017).
To answer our last question, we analysed the other models of sustainable HRM and compared
them to HRM Cockpit. The comparison of HRM Cockpit with ROC-model (De Prins et al., 2014)
and Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017) also proves
HRM Cockpit to be a highly effective tool. This conclusion was made basing on the fact, that HRM
Cockpit complies with all the characteristics of an effective sustainability model, provided by
Savaneviciene et al. (2014). This means, that in accordance with HRM Cockpit, Sustainable HRM
program should be coordinated with the organisational strategy, be flexible, knowledge orientated
and coordinated with the stakeholders’ needs. HRM Cockpit describes the required practices to
achieve the desired outcomes, and highlights the importance of feedback, measurements and
rewards.
54
All the analysed resources, drawn conclusions and established characteristics enables us to answer
our main research question. Therefore, we state that HRM Cockpit is a highly effective, useful and
suitable instrument for the organisations aiming for sustainability and success. It includes all the
crucial elements of sustainability, provides the necessary tools and analysis indicators to
implement and assess sustainable policies.
In conclusion, it needs to be mentioned that a great number of researchers concentrate their work
today on the subject of sustainability. This shows that this concept is of high importance for the
modern society. However, some limitations in the previous researches were found. The lack of a
universally accepted definition of sustainability, a variety of terms, describing similar concepts,
stand in the way of creating a clear and defined concept and transferring it into practice. The
environmental dimension is significantly more emphasized in the literature, while “people” and
“profit” dimensions lack scientific proofs and analyses. For the future research it is essential to
provide more insights on the other two dimensions and to create a clearer concept of sustainability.
Bigger of a scope researches with reliable results are necessary to eliminate the disagreements
about the benefits of sustainability and its effects on the financial performance of organisations.
Transparent and univocal results could help to communicate the benefits and convince more
companies to engage in sustainable practices, which is desperately needed to create a better world
for everyone.
55
LITERATURE LIST
Aaron, K. K. (2012). New corporate social responsibility models for oil companies in Nigeria’s
delta region: What challenges for sustainability? Progress in Development Studies, 12 (4), 259–
273.
Abdelmotaal, H., Abdel-Kader, M. (2016). The use of sustainability incentives in executive
remuneration contracts. Firm characteristics and impact on the shareholders’ returns. Journal of
Applied Accounting Research, 17(3), 311-330.
Abri, I. A., Bi, X., Mullally, C., Hodges, A. (2017). Under what conditions does it pay to be
sustainable? Sources of heterogeneity in corporate sustainability impacts. Economics Letters, 159,
15-17.
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A
systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 180-205.
Aggerholm, H. K., Trapp, N. L. (2014). Three tiers of CSR: an instructive means of understanding
and guiding contemporary company approaches to CSR? Business Ethics: A European Review, 23
(3).
Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968.
Ahen, F., Zettinig, P. (2015). Critical perspectives on strategic CSR: what is sustainable value co-
creation orientation?. Critical perspectives on international business, 11(1), 92-109
Ahern, G. M. (2015). Imagining what underlies corporate sustainability. Journal of Management
Development, 34(4), 494-504.
Alazzani, A., Hassanein, A., Aljanadi, Y. (2017). Impact of gender diversity on social and
environmental performance: evidence from Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 17 (2), 266-283.
Albu, N., Albu C. N., Dumintru, M., Dumitru, V. F. (2013). Plurality or Convergence in
Sustainability Reporting Standards? Business and Sustainable Development, 15(7).
Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., Marimon, F. (2014). A Closer Look at the ‘Global Reporting
Initiative’ Sustainability Reporting as a Tool to Implement Environmental and Social Policies: A
Worldwide Sector Analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
21, 318–335.
Amaladoss, M. X., Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – A
Case of CSR Communication in Emerging Economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 20, 65–80.
Ameer, R., Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability Practices and Corporate Financial Performance: A
Study Based on the Top Global Corporations. Journal Business ethics, 108, 61-79.
56
Ameer, R., Othman, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility performance communication and
portfolio management", Managerial Finance, 43 (5), 595-613.
Amin-Chaudry, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility – from a mere concept to an expected
business practice. Social responsibility journal, 12(1), 190-207.
Antonini, C., Larrinaga, C. (2017). Planetary boundaries and sustainability indicators. A survey of
corporate reporting boundaries. Sustainable Development, 25, 123-137.
Antonioli, D., Mancinelli, S., Mazzanti, M. (2013). Is environmental innovation embedded within
high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and
complementarity in green business strategies. Research Policy, 42, 975– 988.
App S., Merk J., Büttgen M. (2012). Employer Branding: Sustainable HRM as a Competitive
Advantage in the Market for High-Quality Employees. Management revue, 23(3), 262-278.
Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016). A relationship between
corporate sustainability and organizational change (part one). Industrial and Commercial
Training, 48(1), 16-23.
Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016b). A relationship between
corporate sustainability and organizational change (part two). Industrial and Commercial
Training. 48(2), 89-96.
Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016c). A relationship between
corporate sustainability and organizational change (part three). Industrial and Commercial
Training. 48(3), 133-141.
Aragao, C. G., Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from
the Brazilian public sector. Industrial and commercial training, 49(1), 48-54.
Aragon-Correa, J. A., Marcus, A., Rivera, E., Kenworthy, A. L. (2017). Sustainability
management teaching resources and the challenge of balancing Planet, People and Profits.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(3), 469-483.
Arnaud, S., Wasieleski, D. (2014). Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social performance
through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal Business Ethics, 120, 313-334.
Asif, M., Searcy, C., dos Santos, P., Kensah, D. (2013). A review of Dutch Corporate Sustainable
Development Reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 321-
339.
Astara, O., Beneki, C., Mitoula, R., Kalantonis, P. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and
Financial Performance Within the Business Sector in Greece. Kavoura, A., Sakas, D. P., Tomaras,
P. (Eds.), Strategic Innovative Marketing (pp. 337-345). Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Bala, G., Bartel, H., Hawley, J. P., Lee, Y. (2015). Tracking “Real-time” Corporate Sustainability
Signals Using Cognitive Computing. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27 (2).
57
Balaban, O., Cicioglu, F., Okutan, E. (2012). A Survey Aimed at Role and Importance of
NonGovernmental Organizations in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1174 – 1182.
Balaceanu, C., Apostol, D., Penu, D. (2012). Sustainability and social justice. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 677 – 681.
Balgiah, T. E., Yuliati, E. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility: Linkage business performance
and social performance. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 11(2), 120-141.
Baumgartner, R.J. (2014). Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR: A Conceptual Framework
Combining Values, Strategies and Instruments Contributing to Sustainable Development.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 258-271.
Baumgartner, R. J., Winter, T. (2014). The Sustainability Manager: A tool for education and
training on sustainability management. Corporate social responsibility and environmental
management, 21, 167-174.
Bekmezci, M. (2015). Companies’ profitable way of fulfilling duties towards humanity and
environment by sustainable innovation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 228-270.
Berber, N., Susnjar, G. S., Slavic, A., Baosic, M. (2014) Relationship between Corporate Social
Responsibility and Human Resource Management - as New Management Concepts – in Central
and Eastern Europe. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 25(3), 360–369.
Biggemann, S., Williams, M., Kro, G. (2014). Building in sustainability, social responsibility and
value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(4), 304-312.
Bonson, E., Bednarova, M. (2015), CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Revista de
Contabilidad – Spanish Accounting Review, 18(2), 182-193.
Brockhaus, S., Amos, C., Fawcett, A. M., Knemeyer, A. M., Fawcett, S. E. (2017). Please clap!
How customer service quality perception affects the authenticity of sustainability initiatives.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25 (4), 396-420.
Bučiūnienė, I., Kazlauskaitė, R. (2012). The linkage between HRM, CSR and performance
outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 5-24.
Buller, P., McEvoy, G. M. (2016). A Model for implementing a sustainability strategy through
HRM practices. Business and Society Review, 121 (4), 465-495.
Butnariu, A., Avasilcai, S. (2015). The assessment of the companies’ sustainable development
performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1233 – 1238.
Calu, A., Negrei, C., Calu, D.A., Avram, V. (2015). Reporting of Non-Financial Performance
Indicators – a Useful Tool for a Sustainable Marketing Strategy. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(40),
977-993.
58
Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M. (2014). Sustainability reporting and varieties of capitalism.
Sustainable Development, 22, 361-376.
Celma, D., Martinez-Garcia, E., Coenders, G. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility in Human
Resource Management: an analysis of common practices and their determinants in Spain.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 82-99.
Cheema, S., Javed, F. (2017). The effects of corporate social responsibility toward green human
resource management: The mediating role of sustainable environment. Cogent Business &
Management, 4.
Christ, K.L., Burritt, R. L., Varsei, M. (2017). Coopetition as a potential strategy for Corporate
Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 1029-1040.
Cohen, E., King, D. (2017). Human resources management: developing sustainability mindsets.
The Business Student’s Guide to Sustainable Management, 261-287.
Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L.L., Nath, L., Wood, D. (2012). Corporate Reporting of Nonfinancial
Leading Indicators of Economic Performance and Sustainability. Accounting Horizons, 26(1), 65–
90.
Coutinho, V., Domingues, A. R., Caeiro, S., Painho, M., Antunes, P., Santos, R., …, Ramos, T.
(2018). Employee-Driven Sustainability Performance Assessment in Public Organisations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 29-46.
Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., Brammer, S. (2017). Carrots for Corporate Sustainability: Impact of
incentive inclusiveness and variety on environmenral performance. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26, 1110-1131.
De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging
theory and practice through the “Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)”-model. Management
revue, 25(4), 263-284.
De Regge, M. (2017). Lecture Het literatuuronderzoek: efficiënt zoeken naar informatie. Gent.
De Vos, A., Van Der Heijden, B. I. (2017). Current thinking on contemporary careers: the key
roles of sustainable HRM and sustainability of careers. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 28, 41–50.
Deaconu, A., Ghenu, C. I. (2016). The impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management from
a Romanian perspective. In Tanţău, A., Dima, A. M., Hadad, S. (Eds.), Energy, Climate Change
and Sustainability. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business Excellence (pp.
163-174). Bucharest.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide, 4ed. New York.
Degato, D. D. (2017). Innovation and paths to social-ecological sustainability. RISUS-Journal on
Innovation and Sustainability, 8(2).
59
Dhanda, K. (2013). Case Study in the evolution of sustainability: Baxter International Inc. Journal
Business Ethics, 112, 667-684.
Dubois, C. L. Z., Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental
sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799–826.
Dumont, J., Shen, J., Deng, X. (2017). Effects of Green HRM practices on employee workplace
green behaviour: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human
Resource Management, 56(4), 613-627.
Dutta, S., Lawson, R., Marcinko, D. (2012). Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications
of Management Theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 1-
10.
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on
Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
Eccles, R. G., Perkins, K. M., Serafeim, G. (2012). How to become a sustainable company.
MITSloan Management review, 54(4), 43-50.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. A Conceptual and Exploratory
Analysis from a Paradox Perspective. Berlin: Physica-Verlag.
Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink,
K.J. (Eds), Sustainability and Human Resource Management. Developing Sustainable Business
Organizations (pp. 247-272). Berlin: Springer.
Ehnert, I., Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human
resource management: introduction to the special issue. Management revue, 23(3), 221-238.
Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Poper, I., Wagner, M., Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability
and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest
companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Oxford:
Capstone.
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Munoz-Torres, M. J., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A., Rivera-Lirio, J. M. (2017).
Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: A Methodology for Sustainable Development.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 142-162.
Esfahani, S. A., Rezaii, H., Koochmeshki, N, Parsa, S. S. (2017). Sustainable and flexible Human
Resource Management for innovative organizations. AD-MINISTER, 30, 195-215.
Fadhilah, Z., Ramayah, T. (2012). Behind the green doors: What management practices lead to
sustainable innovation? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 247 – 252.
60
Garay, L., Font, X., Pereira-Moliner, J. (2017). Understanding sustainability behaviour: The
relationship between information acquisition, proactivity and performance. Tourism management,
60, 418-429.
Garg, P. (2017). Development of sustainability reporting index (SRI) with special reference to
companies in India. Decision, 44(4), 259-273.
Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N. (2016). State-of-the-art Green
HRM System: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach and
opportunities for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 142-163.
Gnanaweera, K.A.K., Kunori, N. (2018). Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Linkage of corporate
disclosure and performance indicators. Cogent Business & Management, 5.
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A. A. (2013). Corporate sustainability performance and firm
performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision, 51(2),
361-379.
Guerci, M. Carollo, L. (2016). A paradox view on green human resource management: insights
from the Italian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 212-
238.
Guerci, M., Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers in
HR management for sustainability-driven change – towards a “strong” HR management system.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (13), 1787-1814.
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., Siletti, E., Cirella, S., Shani, A. B. R. (2015). The Impact of Human
Resource Management Practices and Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Ethical Climates:
An Employee Perspective. Journal Business Ethics, 126, 325-342.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research
agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276
Gupta, S, Aggarwal, A. (2016). Green Practices at the workplace: a step towards Sustainable
development. Pacific Business Review International, 8(8).
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource management: a
comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27 (2), 192–211.
Hahn, T., Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards and integrative
framework. Journal Business Ethics, 127, 297-316.
Hall, J., Wagner, M. (2012). Integrating Sustainability into Firms’ Processes: Performance Effects
and the Moderating Role of Business Models and Innovation. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 21, 183-196.
Hansen, E., Schaltegger, S. (2016). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review
of Architectures. Journal Business Ethics, 133, 193-221.
61
Harris, C., Tregidga, H. (2012). HR managers and environmental sustainability: strategic leaders
or passive observers? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (2), 236-
254.
Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G. (2012). A business sustainability model: a European case study.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27 (2), 142-151.
Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G., Klopper, H. B., Wagner, B., Varela, J. C. S., Padin, C., …, Petzer,
D. (2015). A triple bottom line construct and reasons for implementing sustainable business
practices in companies and their business networks. Corporate Governance, 15 (4), 427-443.
Isil, O., Hernke, M. (2017). The Triple Bottom Line: A critical review from a transdisciplinary
perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 1235-1251.
Iyigün, N. O. (2015). What could Entrepreneurship do for Sustainable Development? A Corporate
Social Responsibility-based approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1226-
1231.
Jamali, D. R., Dirani, A. M., Harwood, I. A., (2015). Exploring human resource management roles
in corporate social responsibility: the CSR-HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 24(2).
Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability: Environmental, social,
governance, or economic performance? Management Decision, 54(6), 1497-1521.
Kairouz, A., Hokayem, J. E., Hage, U. (2016). Sustainability of Public Management in the
developing countries: the kacase of Lebanon. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221,
378-387.
Kalender, Z. T., Vayvay, Ö. (2016). The Fifth Pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 76 – 83.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Focusing your organization on strategy – with the balanced
scorecard. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Khurshid, R., Darzi, M. A., (2016). Go green with green human resource management practices.
International journal of research in commerce & management, 7(1).
Kocmanova, A., Simanaviciene, Z., Docekalova M. P. (2015). Predictive Model for Measuring
Sustainability of Manufacturing Companies. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics,
26(4), 442–451.
Kocmanova, A., Docekalova, M. P., Simanaviciene, Z. (2017). Corporate Sustainability
Measurement and Assessment of Czech Manufacturing Companies using a Composite Indicator.
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 28(1), 88–100.
Kozica, A., Kaiser, S. (2012). A sustainability perspective on flexible HRM: How to cope with
paradoxes of contingent work. Management revue, 23(3), 239-261.
62
Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource
management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(8), 1069–1089.
Lakshmi, V. R., Kennedy, H. (2017). The role of business sustainability in Human Resource
Management: A study on Indian manufacturing companies. The South East Asian Journal of
Management, 11(1), 70-85.
Langwell, C., Heaton, D. (2016). Using human resource activities to implement sustainability in
SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23 (3), 652-670.
Li, S., Ngniatedema, T., Chen, F. (2017). Understanding the impact of Green Initiatives and Green
Performance on financial performance in the US. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 776-
790.
Lia, J., Tang, G., Chen, Y. (2012). Firms’ human resource in information system and sustainable
performance: does their organizational identity matter? The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(18), 3838–3855.
Lis, B. (2012). The Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility for a Sustainable Human
Resource Management: An Analysis of Organizational Attractiveness as a Determinant in
Employees’ Selection of a (Potential) Employer. Management revue, 23(3), 279-295.
Longoni, A., Cagliano, R. (2016) Human resource and customer benefits through sustainable
operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(12), 1719-1740.
Magbool, M. A. H., Amran, A., Nejati, M., Jayaraman, K. (2016). Corporate sustainable business
practices and talent attraction. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7 (4),
539-559.
Martin-Alcazar, F., Romero-Fernandez, P.M., & Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2005). Strategic human
resource management: integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual
perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 633-659.
Masri, H. A., Jaaron, A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resource management practices in
Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 474-
489.
Mazur, B. (2014). Sustainable Human Resource Management in theory and practice. Economics
and Management, 1.
Mazur, B. (2015). Sustainable Human Resource Management. The attempt of holistic approach.
Economics and Management, 7(2), 7-12.
McElroy, M. W., Van Engelen, J. M. (2012). Corporate sustainability management: The art and
science of managing non-financial performance. Routledge.
63
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS
Medicine, 6(7).
Montiel, I., Delgado-Ceballos, H. (2014). Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Are
We There Yet? Organization & Environment. 27(1).
Morgeson, F.P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D., Siegel, D.S. (2013). Extending Corporate Social
Responsibility research to the Human Resource Management and orgnizational behavior domains:
A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66, 805-824.
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P.S., Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human
resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of
organizational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4),
440–455.
O’Donohue, W., Torugsa, N. (2016). The moderating effect of ‘Green’ HRM on the association
between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27 (2), 239–261.
Parkes, C., Davis, A. J. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility – do HR professionals have the
‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders?’. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24 (12), 2411–2434.
Passalidou, O. (2016). Sustainable Human Resource Management (Master’s Dissertation,
International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece).
Paille, P., Chen, Y., Jin, J., Boiral, O. (2014). The Impact of Human Resource Management on
Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal Business Ethics, 121, 451-466.
Persson, S., Agostini, B., Kleber, A. (2017). In praise of a flexible and sustainable HR support".
Journal of Management Development, 36 (3), 298-308.
Persson, S., Shrivastava, P. (2016). Sustainable Development of Human Resources Inspired by
Chinese Philosophies: A Repositioning Based on Francois Jullien’s Works. Management and
Organization Review, 12(3), 503–524.
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., Redman, T. (2016). Progressing in the change journey
towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of “Green” HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production,
122, 201-211.
Radu, M. (2012). Empirical Study on the Indicators of Sustainable Performance -the Sustainability
Balanced Scorecard, Effect of Strategic Organizational Change. Sustainability and Organizational
Change, 14(32).
Rayner, J., Morgan, D. (2018) An empirical study of ‘green’ workplace behaviours: ability,
motivation and opportunity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(7).
64
Reilly, A. H., Hynan, K. A. (2014). Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media:
It’s not easy (really) being green. Business Horizons, 57, 747—758.
Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., Wilkinson, A. (2016).
Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, (2), 114–128.
Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., Maguire, S. (2013). Green Human Resource Management: A
review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1-14.
Rok, M., Mulej, M. (2014). CSR-based model for HRM in tourism and hospitality. Kybernetes,
43 (3/4), 346-362.
Rothenberg, S., Hull, C.E., Tang, Z. (2015). The Impact of Human Resource Management on
Corporate Social Performance Strengths and Concerns. Business & Society, 56(3), 391 – 418.
Saifulina, N., Carballo-Penela, A. (2017). Promoting Sustainable Development at an
Organizational Level: An Analysis of the Drivers of Workplace Environmentally Friendly
Behaviour of Employees. Sustainable Development, 25, 299–310.
Sarmah, B., Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z. (2015). Sustainability, social responsibility and value co-
creation: A case study based approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 314 – 319
Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2014). The disclosure of sustainability and human
resource management linkage. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics, 8(1).
Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2017). Smart power as a pathway for employing
sustainable Human Resource Management. Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering Economics,
28(2), 198-206.
Saufi, N. A. A., Daud, S., Hassan, H. (2016). Green Growth and Corporate Sustainability
Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 374 – 378.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., Zvezdov, D., Horisch, J., Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2015). Management
Roles and Sustainability Information. Exploring Corporate Practice. Australian Accounting
Review, 25(4).
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., Ludeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability:
Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organization & Environment. 29(1), 3-10.
Schroeder, H. (2012). The Importance of Human Resource Management in Strategic
Sustainability: An Art and Science Perspective. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 75-
82.
Schuler, D., Rasche, A., Etzion, D., (2017). Corporate Sustainability Management and
Environmental Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2).
Schulz, S. A., Flanigan, R. L. (2016). Developing competitive advantage using the triple bottom
line: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(4), 449-458.
65
Singh, S., Kumar, M. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management.
UNNATI-The Business Journal, 1 (2).
Skare, M., Golja, T. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance
– Is There a Link? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 25(1), 215-242.
Speziale, M.T., Kloviene, L. (2014). The relationship between performance measurement and
sustainability reporting: a literature review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 633
– 638
Stankeviciute, Z., Savaneviciene, A. (2013). Sustainability as a concept for Human Resource
Management. Economics and management, 18(4).
Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of Corporate Sustainability. Journal Business Ethics, 123,
687-706.
Svensson, G., Høgevold, N., Ferro, C., Varela, J. C. S., Padin, C., Wagner, B. (2016). A Triple
Bottom Line Dominant Logic for Business Sustainability: Framework and Empirical Findings.
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 23, 153-188.
Sugiyama, D., Shirahada, K., Kosaka, M. (2012). Strategis 5Ps and their IT based service business
model for Corporate Sustainability. Proceedings of PICMET '12: Technology Management for
Emerging Technologies.
Supanti, D., Butcher, K., Fredline, L. (2015) Enhancing the employer-employee relationship
through corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1479-1498.
Suriyankietkaew, S. (2016). Effects of sustainable leadership on customer satisfaction: Evidence
from Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), 245-259.
Szczepanska-Woczczyna, K. (2015). Responsible leadership contribution to Human Resource
Management. Procedia – Economics and Finance, 34, 403-409.
Tabatabaei, S. A. N., Omran, E. S., Hashemi, S., Sedaghat, M. (2017), Presenting Sustainable
HRM Model Based on Balanced Scorecard in Knowledge-based ICT Companies (The Case of
Iran). Economics and Sociology, 10 (2), 07-124.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P., Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management
practices: scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56, 31-55.
Tasleem, M., Khan, N., Saleem, M., Shah, S. T. H., Nisar, A. (2017). Six Steps Implementation
Framework for Corporate Sustainability Performance Management. RISUS - Journal on
Innovation and Sustainability, 8(3).
Tregidga, H., Milne, M., Kearins, K. (2014). (Re)presenting “sustainable organizations”.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 477-494.
66
Turnbull, S., Williams, S. (2015). Developing the next generation of globally responsible leaders:
Generation Y perspective and the implications for Green HRD. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 17(4), 504-521.
Urbaniec, M. (2015). From environmental management to corporate sustainability. The 9th
International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague.
Van Thiel, S. (2014). Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An
Introduction. London
Vanderstaeten, A. (2014). Human Resource Management and Performance. Gent. Academia
Press.
Vanderstraeten, A., Banic, V. (2015). HRM Cockpit: Een duurzaam Human Resource beleid in de
social profit en publieke sector. Gent.
Vavra, J., Bednarikova, M., Ehlova, Z. (2012). Assessment of sustainability aspects in a company.
7th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2012”, 775-782.
Venkatraman S., Nayak, R.R. (2015). Corporate sustainability: an IS approach for integrating
Triple Bottom Line elements. Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (3), 482-501.
Venkatraman S., Nayak, R. R. (2015b). Relationship among Triple Bottom Line elements. Focus
on integrating sustainable business practices. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(2), 195-214.
Vigneau, L., Moon, J., Humphreys, M. (2015). How Do Firms Comply with International
Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting
Initiative. Journal Business ethics, 131, 469-486.
Vildåsen, S. S., Keitsch, M., Fet, A. M. (2017). Clarifying the Epistemology of Corporate
Sustainability. Ecological Economics Elsevier.
Vitari, C., David, C. (2017). Sustainable management models: innovating through permaculture.
Journal of Management Development, 36(1), 14-36.
Voegtlin, C., Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and human resource
management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management
Review, 26, 181–197.
Voets, J. (2018). Lecture Onderzoeksmethoden toegepast in publiek management en
bestuurskunde (‘OM-BPM’), Sessie 21/03/2018. Gent.
Wagner, M. (2013). “Green” Human Resource Benefits: Do they Matter as Determinants of
Environmental Management System Implementation? Journal Business Ethics, 114, 443–456.
Wagner, M. (2015). The link of environmental and economic performance: Drivers and limitations
of sustainability integration. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1306–1317.
67
Wagner, M. (2015b). A European perspective on country moderation effects: Environmental
management systems and sustainability-related human resource benefits. Journal of World
Business, 50, 379–388.
Walker, K., Ni, N., Dyck, B. (2015). Recipes for successful sustainability: Empirical
Organizational Configurations for Strong Corporate Environmental Performance. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 24, 40-57.
Wang, Y., Chen, Y. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: event study
cases. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 12, 193–219
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for
Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (2).
Wilburn, K., Wilburn, R. (2014). The double bottom line: profit and social benefit. Buziness
Horizons, 57, 11-20.
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for Corporate Sustainability
Management: Contrasting Survey Results and Implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 21, 272–285.
Wolf, J. (2013). Improving the Sustainable Development of Firms: The role of employees.
Business Strategy and The Environment, 22, 92-108.
Xing, Y., Starik, M. (2017). Taoist leadership and employee green behaviour: a cultural and
philosophical microfoundation of sustainability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1302-
1319.
Yong, J. Y., Mohd-Yusoff, Y. (2016). Studying the influence of strategic human resource
competencies on the adoption of green human resource management practices. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 48 (8), 416-422.
Yu, M., Zhao, R. (2015). Sustainability and firm valuation: an international investigation.
International journal of Accounting and Information Management, 23(3), 289-307.
Zhang, M., Di Fan, D., Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-Performance Work Systems, Corporate Social
Performance and Employee Outcomes: Exploring the Missing Links. Journal Business Ethics,
120, 423-435.
Zibarras, L. D., Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: a
UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (16), 2121–2142.
Recommended